Info PCIe versions! Reasons to upgrade now!

[Harry_Wild]

PCIe Generations Compared

	Bandwidth	Gigatransfer	Frequency
PCIe 1.0	8 GB/s	2.5 GT/s	2.5 GHz
PCIe 2.0	16 GB/s	5 GT/s	5 GHz
PCIe 3.0	32 GB/s	8 GT/s	8 GHz
PCIe 4.0	64 GB/s	16 GT/s	16 GHz
PCIe 5.0	128 GB/s	32 GT/s	32 GHz
PCIe 6.0	256 GB/s	64 GT/s	32 GHz

Worth upgrading to a new PC in PCIe 5!

PCIe Generations Compared Bandwidth Gigatransfer Frequency PCIe 1.0 8 GB/s 2.5 GT/s 2.5 GHz PCIe 2.0 16 GB/s 5 GT/s 5 GHz PCIe 3.0 32 GB/s 8 GT/s 8 GHz PCIe 4.0 64 GB/s 16 GT/s 16 GHz PCIe 5.0 128 GB/s 32 GT/s 32 GHz PCIe 6.0 256 GB/s 64 GT/s 32 GHz If you have a PCIe 3.0 or...

forums.anandtech.com

 

[Harry_Wild]

Changed my mind on which 7000 series to buy after watching the above!
It is now going to be the top of the line 7950X, set wattage to 65 watts! I am happy with get only 75% of the potential power of the 7950X at that limited wattage! Even if it is a 25% less powerful, I gladly trade that for great efficiency! Eco mode only drops to 90% and 105 watts. Just love how AMD and these influencers can make you go to buying the $700 CPU instead of the $400 based on beachmarks! It is a truly scable CPU that last least the next 20 years for me!

 

[Harry_Wild]

I have decided to hold off my AM5 CPU. Waiting for a 65 watt 7000 models rumor to be release in early 2023 along with lower prices to purchase a X670E motherboard. These X670E are priced sky high. May wait a year from now and purchase the exact items at a big discount.

Update:
If I get $150+ off the 7095X; going buy it! It like 20% savings will paying for my sales tax and one 16GB stick! CPU sales are in the dumps! Recession fears.

All the X670E motherboards have terrible boot startup times! Wait till they fix this and it better be before Thanksgivings for their sake or a lot of them will be returned!😵‍💫 Expect 20% off too on X670E boards too!

 

[Joe NYC]

Direct storage takes advantage of NVME queues to improve loading of many smaller files. Currently direct storage operates similar to the old system of loading assets - compressed assets are loaded into system RAM and decompressed by the CPU then sent to VRAM. With GPU decompression the assets will still be moved into system RAM but then they'll be sent to VRAM to be decompressed by the GPU rather than the CPU, with the CPU only handling the IO requests.

I could be wrong, but I thought that certain assets would be able to go directly from M.2, over PCIe, directly into the GPU, where they are decompressed, and they stay there. Without having to go to main memory.

 

[Harry_Wild]

I have decided to go from the top 7095X to the bottom of the 7000 series to the 7600X! Reason for the change of heart, 3 years from now, I can them buy the 7095X for free given the difference between the costs and discount for the 7095X at that time!

 

[Dranoche]

I could be wrong, but I thought that certain assets would be able to go directly from M.2, over PCIe, directly into the GPU, where they are decompressed, and they stay there. Without having to go to main memory.

That's the end goal for some systems but doesn't seem to be the case for Microsoft's DirectStorage API as it currently stands on PC. Nvidia's GPUDirect Storage (not a confusing name) is supposed to completely bypass the CPU, but I can't find much info on it. Looks like they intended that for enterprise applications rather than games. Nvidia's new RTX IO is supposed to bypass the CPU as well, but it still uses Microsoft's DirectStorage API. I'm guessing that has to do with how it accesses the NVME queue. The Xbox Series S and Series X also have some hardware separate from the CPU and GPU dedicated to compression and decompression to take on that specific load, but I think the CPU is still handling at least some IO requests.

Currently we have DirectStorage 1.0 which works as previously described, like older APIs but taking advantage of NVMEs. A Microsoft presentation from last year indicates that assets will still go through system memory for GPU decompression (that slide at 13:45). A lot of articles reporting on DirectStorage imply that files go directly from storage to VRAM but none have provided any sources showing that. A recent Microsoft dev blog indicates that the upcoming DirectStorage 1.1 will add GPU decompression. It doesn't mention system memory at all, so no idea if the path has changed. Anandtech's reporting on that announcement shows that slide I referenced from the older presentation.

 

[Joe NYC]

That's the end goal for some systems but doesn't seem to be the case for Microsoft's DirectStorage API as it currently stands on PC. Nvidia's GPUDirect Storage (not a confusing name) is supposed to completely bypass the CPU, but I can't find much info on it. Looks like they intended that for enterprise applications rather than games. Nvidia's new RTX IO is supposed to bypass the CPU as well, but it still uses Microsoft's DirectStorage API. I'm guessing that has to do with how it accesses the NVME queue. The Xbox Series S and Series X also have some hardware separate from the CPU and GPU dedicated to compression and decompression to take on that specific load, but I think the CPU is still handling at least some IO requests.

Currently we have DirectStorage 1.0 which works as previously described, like older APIs but taking advantage of NVMEs. A Microsoft presentation from last year indicates that assets will still go through system memory for GPU decompression (that slide at 13:45). A lot of articles reporting on DirectStorage imply that files go directly from storage to VRAM but none have provided any sources showing that. A recent Microsoft dev blog indicates that the upcoming DirectStorage 1.1 will add GPU decompression. It doesn't mention system memory at all, so no idea if the path has changed. Anandtech's reporting on that announcement shows that slide I referenced from the older presentation.

Strange, how little information there is about it. This article seems to say that the assets are loaded directly from NVMe to GPU:
What Is Windows DirectStorage? Does It Make Your Gaming Experience Better (technewstoday.com)

 

[igor_kavinski]

Once the DirectStorage 1.1 SDK is released, it should be fun to benchmark their sample application on our PCs.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Well, the motherboard manufacturers are trying to shorting the long boot time and they shave off 45 seconds so now it take around 2.15 seconds to boot it from Windows 11!
I am use to around the 10 seconds boot! No buy for me; until they get it down to what I am use to in my Windows 10 Pro! 10 seconds and I will start shopping for my motherboard and CPU combo!

 

[UsandThem]

I have decided to go from the top 7095X to the bottom of the 7000 series to the 7600X! Reason for the change of heart, 3 years from now, I can them buy the 7095X for free given the difference between the costs and discount for the 7095X at that time!

Well, the motherboard manufacturers are trying to shorting the long boot time and they shave off 45 seconds so now it take around 2.15 seconds to boot it from Windows 11!
I am use to around the 10 seconds boot! No buy for me; until they get it down to what I am use to in my Windows 10 Pro! 10 seconds and I will start shopping for my motherboard and CPU combo!

Cool stories broh!

Be sure to keep us updated over the next 3 years!

 

[Harry_Wild]

There is about $150 difference for a PCI Express 5.0 x16 expansion slot in an AM5 motherboard and one without it. I think the “E” after the chipset name means that it has PCI Express 5.0 x16 capacity. Along with that, the slot is painted colored in white while everything else is black. Not sure but the $600 motherboards have both the on-board M.2 slot and x16 slot are PCIe Gen 5-ready! I been sort of confuse since I been try to pick an 7000 series AM5 motherboard from B650E and X670E and micro ATX vs. ATX size. Since I do not know stuff, I tend to buy the most expensive since I feel that it covers all the future bases for upgrades till 2025!

 

[The red spirit]

Changed my mind on which 7000 series to buy after watching the above!
It is now going to be the top of the line 7950X, set wattage to 65 watts! I am happy with get only 75% of the potential power of the 7950X at that limited wattage! Even if it is a 25% less powerful, I gladly trade that for great efficiency! Eco mode only drops to 90% and 105 watts. Just love how AMD and these influencers can make you go to buying the $700 CPU instead of the $400 based on beachmarks! It is a truly scable CPU that last least the next 20 years for me!

It's nothing really special. Intel has PLs (power limits) and Taus (how long each power limit stays active). AMD with Zen chips always had PPT. Before all that there was cTDP. So whatever you have, you might be able to achieve the same effect, minus performance.

 

[Harry_Wild]

It's nothing really special. Intel has PLs (power limits) and Taus (how long each power limit stays active). AMD with Zen chips always had PPT. Before all that there was cTDP. So whatever you have, you might be able to achieve the same effect, minus performance.

I did not come across any Intel CPU utility like Ryzen Master to have one click selection in setting CPU wattage yet! Do you know if Intel has such a program and what is it called?

 

[The red spirit]

I did not come across any Intel CPU utility like Ryzen Master to have one click selection in setting CPU wattage yet! Do you know if Intel has such a program and what is it called?

If you are really desperate or use OEM computer, try Throttlestop, maybe Intel XTU. They are not guaranteed to work. If you built computer yourself, just go to BIOS and set desired wattage as PLs. There's one downside to that, if you set it too low, CPU won't downclock bellow base clock, because PLs control Turbo Boost algorithm only. Also PLs set very high won't allow chip to go beyond maximum turbo clocks, specified at Intel's website. As far as I know this functionality exists on all Turbo Boost supported chips since Sandy Bridge. Not sure about first gen Core i series.

 

[Harry_Wild]

If you are really desperate or use OEM computer, try Throttlestop, maybe Intel XTU. They are not guaranteed to work. If you built computer yourself, just go to BIOS and set desired wattage as PLs. There's one downside to that, if you set it too low, CPU won't downclock bellow base clock, because PLs control Turbo Boost algorithm only. Also PLs set very high won't allow chip to go beyond maximum turbo clocks, specified at Intel's website. As far as I know this functionality exists on all Turbo Boost supported chips since Sandy Bridge. Not sure about first gen Core i series.

Will I need got use to setting advanced bios setting. I just do not want to experiment so if I buy an Intel Raptor, going find a preset that somebody else has the PLs set for 65W.

 

[The red spirit]

Will I need got use to setting advanced bios setting. I just do not want to experiment so if I buy an Intel Raptor, going find a preset that somebody else has the PLs set for 65W.

There are no presets. It's just a simple BIOS setting. Clock speed and voltage are automatically regulated on chip. I highly suggest you to read this excellent article about PLs and Taus, it's very detailed, but should be comprehensible:

Why Intel Processors Draw More Power Than Expected: TDP and Turbo Explained

www.anandtech.com

And you can read one experiment with PLs here:

The Intel Core i9-9900K at 95W: Fixing The Power for SFF

www.anandtech.com

Just one thing I should mention is that motherboard makers (excluding OEMs like HP and Dell) differentiate their products based on PL and Tau values. These come as defaults. Also despite certian number set as PL, it's not continuous wattage of chip, it's only upper limit of what you allow chip to reach. Some workloads are very "light" on wattage, meanwhile others are "heavy". Setting PLs very low will create a big variations of performance between those tasks compared to BIOS default PLs.

 

[UsandThem]

Will I need got use to setting advanced bios setting. I just do not want to experiment so if I buy an Intel Raptor, going find a preset that somebody else has the PLs set for 65W.

Are you already planning to cheat on your future 65w Ryzen 7050X?

 

[Harry_Wild]

Are you already planning to cheat on your future 65w Ryzen 7050X?

No, I have decided to wait till the lower wattage cpus to be released in the 1st quarter 2023. But I will be shopping for DDR5 RAM, 990 MvMe and motherboard. Already purchased a 1200 watt PSU and new case.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Already purchased a 1200 watt PSU and new case.

Surely you joke! Why do you need a PSU of that wattage with a CPU consuming less wattage? Are you also getting the 4090?

 

[The red spirit]

No, I have decided to wait till the lower wattage cpus to be released in the 1st quarter 2023. But I will be shopping for DDR5 RAM, 990 MvMe and motherboard. Already purchased a 1200 watt PSU and new case.

1200 watt PSU is a bit pointless if you really care about Eco modes. Even if you built complete just "send it" type of rig today (i9 13900K + 4090), you will still fit within 700-750 watts at maximum load, basically prime95 and Furmark runnign at the same time. With eco mode on, you can cut wattage in half (for CPU) or just adjust PLs to your liking. You can achieve very similar thing with GPU too if you use TDP slider, but since most games are more demanding for GPU, I would be more conservative with TDP cutting and let's say you end up with 65% TDP. You most likely lose 15% performance, but save more power.You can end up with CPU being capped at 140 watts and GPU capped at 290 watts. You still end up with total power usage of just 430 watts average, which is far cry from what 1200 watt PSU offers. Hell, my own computer (i5 10400F + RX 580) with some power limits (70 watts for CPU and 107 watts for GPU) only consumes 200 watts while gaming. My 550 watt PSU is massively overkill for it and it loses a lot of efficiency while computer idles.

 

[A///]

Changed my mind on which 7000 series to buy after watching the above!
It is now going to be the top of the line 7950X, set wattage to 65 watts! I am happy with get only 75% of the potential power of the 7950X at that limited wattage! Even if it is a 25% less powerful, I gladly trade that for great efficiency! Eco mode only drops to 90% and 105 watts. Just love how AMD and these influencers can make you go to buying the $700 CPU instead of the $400 based on beachmarks! It is a truly scable CPU that last least the next 20 years for me!

This is my decision to. I've spoken with @Markfw at length about this in messages and it really is the best processor on the market. For people who load their processor several hours a day the cost difference can be significant at the end of your billing period. given the erratic costs of electricity and gas where I reside, it could be a difference of 300-400 a year in these trying times when the global economy is in the gutters.

good on you for finding the number 9 key on your keyboard again, harry. Very proud of you.

 

[Markfw]

This is my decision to. I've spoken with @Markfw at length about this in messages and it really is the best processor on the market. For people who load their processor several hours a day the cost difference can be significant at the end of your billing period. given the erratic costs of electricity and gas where I reside, it could be a difference of 300-400 a year in these trying times when the global economy is in the gutters.

good on you for finding the number 9 key on your keyboard again, harry. Very proud of you.

I decided to go with PBO CO -25, that gives me 142 watts (same as the 5950x) and WAY more performance than a 5950x.. I can't give you a number, but lets say ~90% performance at 50% of the wattage., and like 40% faster than a 5950x. Please don't quote my numbers, they are estimations.(on performance)

 

[Hotrod2go]

If you are really desperate or use OEM computer, try Throttlestop, maybe Intel XTU. They are not guaranteed to work. If you built computer yourself, just go to BIOS and set desired wattage as PLs. There's one downside to that, if you set it too low, CPU won't downclock bellow base clock, because PLs control Turbo Boost algorithm only. Also PLs set very high won't allow chip to go beyond maximum turbo clocks, specified at Intel's website. As far as I know this functionality exists on all Turbo Boost supported chips since Sandy Bridge. Not sure about first gen Core i series.

With respect to PLs, that depends on the model of motherboard. My Z590 Unify allows me to go beyond Intel's official turbo clocks for my i7. The problem then becomes power usage numbers as decided by the silicon lottery phenomena & cooling solutions in order to sustain it for any given workload.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

This back and forth over the course of a few weeks reads like a frightening, elating and educational experience: "I'll do this... No. Yes.... Hmm, no... Yes, I swear!... Actually..."

 

[igor_kavinski]

This back and forth over the course of a few weeks reads like a frightening, elating and educational experience: "I'll do this... No. Yes.... Hmm, no... Yes, I swear!... Actually..."

I'm really sad that he dumped the 7950X for Raptor Lake. I hope he doesn't do the same with his girlfriends. "Sorry. I changed my mind. Out you go!".

 

[Harry_Wild]

Surely you joke! Why do you need a PSU of that wattage with a CPU consuming less wattage? Are you also getting the 4090?

For future proofing! The difference is about $75 between a 850 watt and 1200 watt so why not? Platinum model was on sale so just impulse buy.