[Techspot] PCIe 4.0 (R9 3950x) vs. PCIe 3.0 (i9-10900k) 3080 benchmarks
techspot.com/review/2104-pcie4-vs-pcie3-gpu-p...Posted Sep 25, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC
3723
techspot.com
TL;DR: Intel is still faster even at 3.0 8x speeds.
19
While using 10 plus years of older gaming software that like dualcore cpus with higher clocked single cores.
-13
And? a 10 year old technology beating a new node?
6
Can you run a Tesla on gasoline.
1
[removed]
1
Aren't these pci 4 benchmark stupid, if we don't know how much pci bandwidth is being used by the software being tested?
4
how will this be affected when we get games streaming assets directly from storage?
1
It could actually improve the performance of pcie gen 3 if the data is streaming in compressed less data need to be sent. Rtx io may very well benefit Intel more by moving decompression workload that is good for CPU with more core to gpu.
4
Unknown at this point, but I don't think it'll be a significant difference. Using the new Samsung 980 Pro as an example, sequential speeds are better but the 4k randoms are nowhere near the bus limitations for even PCI-E 1.0 or SATA.
2
Seems to tighten the margin a bit, making it even more likely 5900x will be better and cheaper than 10900k.
-10
For those who are wondering if in the grand scheme of things, the additional bandwidth of PCI-E 4.0 on the Ryzen 3950x will offer enough gains in FPS to beat PCI-E 3.0 on the Intel 10900k, the answer (at the present) is still a no for the RTX 3080. Intel is still on top.
(Now, to hunt down a crow. I have a meal I need to eat.)
No benefit for gaming. Swapping to pcie4 frees up eight lanes (via x8/x8), even on b550. Combine with a 3950x and it potentially lets people forgo the huge threadripper price increase if they need io bandwidth more than cpu cores.
If all you do is game then yeah it doesn't much matter.
Gamers Nexus proved the same thing last week. Although in his case it was i7-10700K versus Ryzen 9 3900XT.
Was he running 10700K 8 cores at 5Ghzm or some disabled?
Not sure. He only mentioned that he disabled SMT on the 3900XT as he found it was making the performance worse across the board in the particular games being tested, for whatever reason.
Even with both CPUs running full SMT on all cores though, the 3900XT would never beat the 10700K.
But that's a red herring. At 4k no CPU mattered OC'ed or not, at 1440p the results are also negligible, also not including the 3950xt as a mention, suspicious. Not including dx12 multi-gpu in a benchmark, these people are up to no good.
Am I crazy? It looks like the benchmarks show the Intel combo with PCIe 3.0 is still faster on every benchmark.
Even the verbiage in the article is weird.
For death stranding:
It starts off showing the ryzen with 3080 using PCIe 4.0, hitting 176fps in 1080p
Then shows the Intel cpu with 3080 using PCIe 3.0, hitting 186fps in 1080p.
But the language under the Intel section says, " Here we’re looking at a 5% reduction in average frame rate at 1080p with a 10% reduction in 1% low performance."
When in fact, the graphic they show is exactly opposite of that. It shows the intel+3080+PCIe 3.0 combo getting BETTER performance than the ryzen+3080+PCIe 4.0 combo.
Or am I totally not seeing this correctly?
Gaming hasn't evolved since dual core cpus. Maybe that changes with ps5.
Lmao and the eye can't see more than
306090 fps right? Go play battlefield on a dual core and then try on something better.Battlefield 4 runs on dual core.
Even WoW, a 15 year old game that released in the era of single core has evolved past 2 threads.
You can still run games on very few cores with higher clock speed. Shit ain't changed, just polished. AlexVR should be included as benchmark, not GTA5 ps3 era game.
More likely with xbox since ps5 is gimped.