lehpron

tamerlee
I haven't seen any articles proving programs install faster with Dual Channel vs Triple Channel. A good SSD will definitely speed this up, but I'd like to see an article that says Triple Channel speeds up install times.

Most articles on RAM bandwidth don't test load times, besides I went from a 10GB/s rig to a 30GB/s rig, I don't need an article to tell me what I would see.

Too many people focus on either channels or frequency trying to figure out which is better, few show they recognize that bandwidth is a product of both-- that's the number that matters. 

 
Interesting.  I'm going to time my current setup and see how things go in the next with the increased bandwidth.

SirWaWa

http://www.techpowerup.co...on-Chinese-Stores.html
dunno how accurate this is but pricing is nearly 1k!
ridiculous
board looks good but I wouldn't get RoG
I hear more complaints than praise from that people that actually use them

 
I believe the other prices, the ASUS Rampage IV Extreme has to be a mistake though.  I'm expecting $450ish for this, the Gigabyte G1.Assassin 2, and the EVGA X79 Classified.  

tamerlee

lehpron

tamerlee
I haven't seen any articles proving programs install faster with Dual Channel vs Triple Channel. A good SSD will definitely speed this up, but I'd like to see an article that says Triple Channel speeds up install times.

Most articles on RAM bandwidth don't test load times, besides I went from a 10GB/s rig to a 30GB/s rig, I don't need an article to tell me what I would see.

Too many people focus on either channels or frequency trying to figure out which is better, few show they recognize that bandwidth is a product of both-- that's the number that matters. 

But it's a matter of does that bandwidth increase matter? Just because you have more bandwidth, doesn't mean it gets utilized. A SATA II port has less bandwidth than a SATA III port, but a SATA III hard drive has 0 performance difference when used on a SATA II port.

 
I agree that bandwidth isn't always utilized, but that example isn't valid since it doesn't translate to memory.

Johnny_Utah

tamerlee

lehpron

tamerlee
I haven't seen any articles proving programs install faster with Dual Channel vs Triple Channel. A good SSD will definitely speed this up, but I'd like to see an article that says Triple Channel speeds up install times.

Most articles on RAM bandwidth don't test load times, besides I went from a 10GB/s rig to a 30GB/s rig, I don't need an article to tell me what I would see.

Too many people focus on either channels or frequency trying to figure out which is better, few show they recognize that bandwidth is a product of both-- that's the number that matters. 

But it's a matter of does that bandwidth increase matter? Just because you have more bandwidth, doesn't mean it gets utilized. A SATA II port has less bandwidth than a SATA III port, but a SATA III hard drive has 0 performance difference when used on a SATA II port.

I agree that bandwidth isn't always utilized, but that example isn't valid since it doesn't translate to memory.

His analogy kind of supports how running single, dual or triple channel could hold back the bandwidth of memory vs quad channel just like taking a SATA III drive and using it on a SATA II port.

tamerlee
But it's a matter of does that bandwidth increase matter? Just because you have more bandwidth, doesn't mean it gets utilized.

Program dependant; you need to run something RAM intensive.  I'll admit my increase was not 300% linear, but it does create a dependancy that the next one would require something like over 80GB/s just to notice the type of change I've already seen.  Practical anytime soon, no; but I'm not in a hurry. 

tamerlee
A SATA II port has less bandwidth than a SATA III port, but a SATA III hard drive has 0 performance difference when used on a SATA II port.

Be mindful of the difference between comparing hardware-to-hardware, as opposed to software-to-hardware or vice versa.  With that analogy you're creating a situation where the SATA III drive in a SATA II slot has no chance of ever getting better; it might be better to compare a first-gen SATA II with a recent gen SATA II drive, but even that wouldn't quite get there.
 
A program will want space and swap-rate, that's why early systems benefited with more RAM because there wasn't enough to go around (in terms of multiplie processes and their allocation requirements, system wastes time deleting and adding).  The closest analogy I can come up with is using an Indy car to drive to a corner grocery store.  At least I have the feeling (meaning I don't really know) that the memory controller "accelerates" while uploading and swapping.  If the allocation is small, then high bandwidth won't be utilized because it will be over and done with too quickly.  Therefore, unless you have multiple small allocation instances, the allocation needs to be huge with loads of swapping, hence OS and program loads.
 
But it still depends on what you do; one day I'd like to try out a RAMdisk.

Benchmarks are synthetic by definition, unless you find one specific to a program you use often, which sets yourself up to claim none such exists.  A quick Google search reveals several options exist, but importance is a matter of faith.
 
You can simulate the difference in bandwidth in triple channel by just dropping your RAM frequency down 50%, or pull out one-third of your DIMM's.  Remember, it isn't about the channels, it is about the bandwidth.  If you have triple DDR3-1600 (38.4GB/s), then drop it down to 1066Mhz, where triple-1066 = dual-1600 = 25.6GB/s.  Test it out yourself, that's proof enough, isn't it?
 
If what I experienced was really a placebo, then if I downclocked my triple-channel to DDR3-400 to simullate my old equivalent of bandwidth in dual-channel DDR2-667, then I shouldn't be able to tell the difference...

I think this vido will answer most answers many have regarding the pci-e supplemental power and overall board layout.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-lcqRluIFs

gatecrasher

I think this vido will answer most answers many have regarding the pci-e supplemental power and overall board layout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-lcqRluIFs

 
Nice vid, glad they such generous spacing, the 2 16x pcie lanes beeing so far apart that you could 2 way sli 3 slot cards like the the asus ones with directcu II, mars etc. Also that OC key thingy looks intersting, wonder how it will work. All in all, a killer board probably with a killer price.
 
 

lehpron

Benchmarks are synthetic by definition, unless you find one specific to a program you use often, which sets yourself up to claim none such exists.  A quick Google search reveals several options exist, but importance is a matter of faith.

You can simulate the difference in bandwidth in triple channel by just dropping your RAM frequency down 50%, or pull out one-third of your DIMM's.  Remember, it isn't about the channels, it is about the bandwidth.  If you have triple DDR3-1600 (38.4GB/s), then drop it down to 1066Mhz, where triple-1066 = dual-1600 = 25.6GB/s.  Test it out yourself, that's proof enough, isn't it?

If what I experienced was really a placebo, then if I downclocked my triple-channel to DDR3-400 to simullate my old equivalent of bandwidth in dual-channel DDR2-667, then I shouldn't be able to tell the difference...

 
Benchmarks are not synthetic by definition. You can benchmark booting up your computer, installing a program, launching a program, etc. These are all instances of real world benchmarks. And again, Google only results in synthetics.
 
This is the only benchmark I've seen using real-world applications: http://www.tomshardware.c...7-Nehalem,2057-13.html
 
Also, that's a very poor analogy. Bandwidth is not the only thing that changes when you down-clock memory.

^^ I remember now.  It was basically Gigabyte's competitor to the EVGA X58 Classified 4-way SLI, and $300 more.  I don't expect that this time around though especially from ASUS.

MSim

boredgunner

I'm disappointed that this motherboard lacks one of the audio chipsets used on their Xonar DX.  I would really like high quality sound through USB, and while Gigabyte's X79 G1.Assassin 2 has such a feature, it uses a Creative X-Fi chipset which my headset supposedly doesn't like.  

You want a mobo that has better onboard sound so you can get high quality through USB headset?
Don't all USB headsets have a built-in sound card, how would the mobo onboard sound give you high quality sound.

 
It's like plugging a headset into a sound card.  It's true, headsets have their own, but there are better aftermarket ones.

I'm interested in the X79 WS Revolution.  Their X58 WS lineup had higher quality audio chipsets.

jingiko

Asus pricing is up
Rampage IV Extreme @ 461.68

http://accessories.eracks.com/produc...ge-iv-extreme/

Sabertooth @ 353.43

http://accessories.eracks.com/product/sabertooth-x79/

X79 WS Revolution @ 385.28

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/...er_id=!ORDERID!

X79 Pro @ 341.73

http://accessories.eracks.com/product/p9x79-pro/

X79 Deluxe @ 407.43

http://accessories.eracks.com/product/p9x79-deluxe/

Should be cheaper on the egg, but it would still be high for its first week on the egg.

 
Drats, foiled again!  BG, you were right on the head if this is accurate....450 bucks for the R4 Extreme!  Wonder what the Classified will come in at.

Johnny_Utah

jingiko

Asus pricing is up
Rampage IV Extreme @ 461.68

http://accessories.eracks.com/produc...ge-iv-extreme/

Sabertooth @ 353.43

http://accessories.eracks.com/product/sabertooth-x79/

X79 WS Revolution @ 385.28

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/...er_id=!ORDERID!

X79 Pro @ 341.73

http://accessories.eracks.com/product/p9x79-pro/

X79 Deluxe @ 407.43

http://accessories.eracks.com/product/p9x79-deluxe/

Should be cheaper on the egg, but it would still be high for its first week on the egg.

Drats, foiled again!  BG, you were right on the head if this is accurate....450 bucks for the R4 Extreme!  Wonder what the Classified will come in at.

 
I expect the EVGA X79 Classified to cost about the same (within $20).  Lets see if I'm right again.  

HalloweenWeed

Oh no, might the Taiwan flooding delay the R4e significantly?!!!!!

http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/p/58528/413021.aspx

It says AsusTek is one of the Mfgrs affected.  Bummer.

Its mainly hard drives.
Asus is running out of hard drives for their laptops.
Not their motherboards.