I think I'm back to AMD now

I will probably wait to watch all the Wendel, Gamers Nexus, JayzTwoCebts et al videos once the Intel embargo lifts tomorrow to hopefully confirm the 285K isn't worth it, and then I'll build the 7950x setup tomorrow afternoon and return the 9950X setup.... unless MSI magically release a BIOS that fixes everything tonight

 

alleged leak (16h is just too much of a wait!):

 

I have never bought anything from Intel, I only know AMD, AMD was always in trouble and only had debts, until God gave AMD the Ryzen, they finally made a profit. Intel was always too expensive, I don't earn that much money. AMD was cheaper.

Asus always worked, I also had GigyByte, they were always lagging behind. MSI was the hit back then but was too expensive. Asrock was junk back then but they caught up a lot. ASUS had the most USB ports and a Firewire port back then. Now I'm on Windows 11 and that means the errors have increased massively, also constantly new processors, new DRD4 then DD5 5, I think the companies are under a lot of competitive pressure. But ASUS really does seem to have the best people. Similar to Samsung and LG.

Intel's advertising has always annoyed me, millions for advertising. Intel once had a monopoly, but thanks to Ryzen they have AMD as a serious competitor and that's why everyone wants to be the fastest on the market, which leads to incorrect research and errors.

So my conclusion is - I've read all your postings, dear Bunford, I admire how tough you are and how much power you put into it.
Some users wrote that always buying the latest is not smart, But you want the fastest and best, and that's what you'll get. I've also made a few bad purchases this year. That's life, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D / 4.20GHz So.AM5 now costs 628 EUR and is in the manufacturing process: 5nm! We were at 14nm! The smaller it gets, the more likely errors are to creep in. USB sockets on the case can also be faulty from the factory. I had to replace the 2 USB 3.0 sockets on a new Fraktal case.

 

(5 images per post limit)

 

Well for me I didn't want any issues with anything on my DAW. So I chose Intel and it has worked out with many CPU and MB.

Now as I said before if it was for something else I think I would chose AMD.

FYI The AMD chips I ran in a VM ware Enterprise / SAN environment had no issues at all. ALL running MS servers Example exchange,
KVS Enterprise vault and other stuff.

 

Always check for cpu throttling even if things look good from OS.

 

416W? WTAF!!!! I'd be interested to know the real world, non-stress test load though. Gamers Nexus has already hinted that Intel may be being sneaky with this as the power load is no longer fully reported by measuring the two 8-pin CPU power cables and their load as some of the power load is now going to be distributed via the 24-pin motherboard connector too. He said HWinfo may give a better indication that most other tools, but most tools as it stands are only measuring the load pushed through the two 8-pin CPU connectors, which doesn't give the full picture for the new Core Ultra CPUs, potentially

 

This is why I am consider leaping back to Intel.

I always had Intel CPUs and ASUS motherboards from early-2000s up to the Ryzen 5000 series going through the Pentium 4, Celeron, Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, Core i7's up to the i7-4960X, after which I went for a Gigabyte board and a 5950X as AMD seemed like the better processor at the time. I was happy (until spring 2024 when the USBs stopped working as they should). Gave AMD benefit of the doubt and went for 9950X, but changed board manufacturer to MIS (thinking the USB issues was a Gigabyte issue). However, had headaches with the 9950X and MSI X870E board, hence me considering my options and whether to leap back to Intel and ASUS.

 

I've rarely read such nonsense. I have a 14900k, 128GB RAM, RTX 4080, and an MSI Aorus Z790
MasterX. And here’s the kicker: I’m cooling it solely with a Noctua DH 15S and have absolutely no temperature issues. Quite the opposite, in fact. And under comparable system load, this PC doesn’t consume significantly more power than my 2019 iMac with an i5.

 

Last edited: Oct 24, 2024 at 12:50 PM

Pretty damning titles and content from the first reputable reviews of the Intel Core Ultra CPUs to pop up on YouTube

 

Last edited: Oct 24, 2024 at 4:26 PM

Intel's upcoming hybrid top model, the Core Ultra 9 285K, allowed itself a power consumption ("CPU Package Power") of up to 370 watts in Cinebench R23 when it is operated with the corresponding BIOS settings without the TDP limits actually specified at the factory, the so-called "Intel Defaults". With standard settings, around 280 watts are achieved, while with a power limit of 250 watts, almost 350 watts flow.

 

Sped through a bunch of reviews - pretty bad for Intel. I don't think buying ARL is a rational choice. Certainly not right now and likely 6 months from now as well (imo one should never bank on a company fixing issues with their products anyway). I think this was Intel going "we gotta make money, bro. Christmas is around the corner, bro." with ARL. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the only release on this socket.

 

Today a new BIOS for your motherboard https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/MPG-X870E-CARBON-WIFI/support

 

Oh really. So not just me but all these underneath are morons and you know what you are talking about.
https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/intels-300w-core-i9-14900k-cpu-review-benchmarks-gaming-power
From Anandtech :
"In the multi-threaded benchmark, the Core i9-14900KS consistently spikes above 400 W. In contrast, the Core i9-14900K doesn't go beyond 360 W"
Now, i know a guy with a really cool Porsche, the dude never gets past 120km/h even on the highway. I asked him why the heck did you buy this, he replied i gotta to have the best and sexiest i can afford but i don't like to speed. Go figure.
You can always buy a 64core Threadripper because MS Office can get demanding.
Just because you don't do demanding cpu projects, doesn't mean the 14900K is not the most power hungry Intel cpu of the last decade hehe. At a constant full load that cpu goes well beyond the 280-300W i mentioned. And surely at that point, the DH-15 which is rated at 220W max cooling power cannot cool it, the cpu will throttle back to safer clock speed and you will never notice it! Even at stock settings the 14900K's stock limit is rated to 253W which again is beyond Noctua's capacity. Also everybody -but you obviously- knows the cpu well exceeds that 253W power consumption, hence the myriad problems that plagued both the 13th and 14th gen. So spare us your wisdom of ownership and blah. Math doesn't lie, everything else is bullcrap and you sir seem like a fanboy to me and not much else.
There's plenty more where these came from if you want.

 

Last edited: Oct 25, 2024 at 12:23 AM

Yeah, noticed it, and about to install now

EDIT: Still has the same issue after this beta BIOS install!

 

Last edited: Oct 24, 2024 at 8:09 PM

There was also a new BIOS again a day later. Had the 1.2.0.2a microcode which is meant to fix the PACE iLok issues and appears to from my brief check. However, still have the USB issues, therefore it''s all packed and about to be returned now

 

R2R has "fixed" the PACE Ilok crap a long time already, you shouldn't install that legit crap. ;)

Again, i personally would try the 9950x with another mobo. (if you are almost end in returning period, return first, order 9950x again for new period including different mobo)
Are you sure your DDR5 RAM's are compatible with the current mobo?

 

Yeah,but as Iwon UAS Spark and SoundToys legit, I rely on iLok (unfortunately). There was an issue with the new 9000 series with dual CCDs as the core parking baked in was causing a delay in processes being executed that meant the iLok Licensing Manager was spotting the delay and going crazy and cashing. Thisn made anything using iLok License Manager unusable. I think AMD and PACE have collaborated on the solution, where microcode 1.2.0.2a apparently halves the delay time within the CPU and PACE have increased the amount of time to wait for a response to find a middle ground.

My RAM is 96GB (2x48GB) 5600MHz Crucial Pro DDR5 and they've on the QVL for all motherboard manufacturers. With XMP/EXPO profiles at 5600MHz, it means getting them to the 6000MHz is pretty easy.

I was on last day of return period, and it's all gone back today.

I've set up the ASUS X670E Crosshair Hero with the 7950X, have my RAM running at 6000MHz, and have zero issues so far, with USBs all working correctly. Considering the cost difference I paid (£752 vs £1,038), I will probably hold onto this and have some stability for now as not sure the £300 price difference is justified by the performance gain of the 9950X over the 7950X, and perhaps contemplate the 9950X or similar, or its predecessor(s) in a year or two as AMD have committed to the AM5 socket until 2027.

 

Congratulations Bunford on your Asus decision and good to hear it works. The 8-15% performance increases from the 9950X are bearable. The installation thriller was exciting and nerve-wracking and it looks like you are now a happy user of the 7950X Max. Boost clock speed Up to 5.7 GHz Base clock speed 4.5 GHz! Standard TDP 170W.

 

Ok you dare to play Russian roulette with ASUS and 7950X lol.
With all the overvoltage issues with ASUS mobo's for AMD and their refrain to accept any warranty claims from customers, while it turned out it was ASUS' fault i would not even spend a penny on them anymore.
ASUS and Intel is a different story, but ASUS with AMD....

There seems a big difference between the 7950x and the 9950x though.... 9950x delivers more CPU power while it reduces power consumption specially in eco mode which is only about 85watts, which result in money savings on the electricity bills...

Anyway if your current choice feels good for you it's all good.
It's your money and you have to use the system for a couple of years.