EVGA

X299 Slower Than X99??

Author
Chopper3200
New Member
  • Total Posts : 28
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 9/26/2007
  • Status: offline
  • Ribbons : 1
Thursday, December 26, 2019 1:57 AM (permalink)
Hi everyone, Merry Christmas!  I'm running a X299 Dark with a i9-9900X processor set on auto for multiplier, G.Skill 3200 memory, EVGA Titan X.  Sold my EVGA X99  Classified with 6850k.  The problem I am having is slower performance with the X299.  I like to just run the 3Dmark Firestrike test and I score mid 13k, I use to score mid 16k with the X99 board.  The graphics test 1 and 2 and physics seem on par but the combined test is horrible averaging 20fps or so, I use to see 40's on the X99.  The gpu usage never really goes above 50% on the combined test.  I cant figure out why this new board is slower and have tried everything I can think of.  Also tried new windows and driver install, different bios versions, resetting bios and making sure every things set right, different slots, different power supply, re-seated cpu.  I can hit 16k's if I set the multiplier for the i9-9900x cpu at 46 but I didn't think I would have to push it that fast to score equal to a X99.  I'm out of ideas.  Is something bottle necked?  Thanks.
#1

7 Replies Related Threads

    Sajin
    EVGA Forum Moderator
    • Total Posts : 49227
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 6/8/2010
    • Location: Texas, USA.
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 199
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Thursday, December 26, 2019 3:21 AM (permalink)
    Spectre and meltdown protection disabled?
    #2
    Chopper3200
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 28
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 9/26/2007
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 1
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Thursday, December 26, 2019 9:27 PM (permalink)
    Just tried disabling them, hardly any difference in score.  Also, PCI-E slot 1 is being detected in Windows 10 as slot 6, and slot 6 as slot 1, the other slots appear to be ordered correctly.  It's messing up the video card ordering.  
    #3
    DEJ915
    SSC Member
    • Total Posts : 544
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 11/4/2013
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 11
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Friday, December 27, 2019 5:44 AM (permalink)
    9900X Auto/stock doesn't work right on the dark and doesn't boost properly or didn't for mine when I had it.  Set manual multiplier and see if it works better.  It is an "OC" board but it is kind of dumb stock doesn't work imo.
     
    edit: I just noticed you tried manual multi already.
     
    Another thing to try is see if is hyper threading lowering performance which for whatever reason skylake-x is affected more than previous hedt parts.  Not sure why but just something I've encountered.
    post edited by DEJ915 - Friday, December 27, 2019 5:57 AM
    #4
    RainStryke
    The Advocate
    • Total Posts : 10616
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 7/20/2007
    • Location: Kansas
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 60
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Tuesday, December 31, 2019 2:56 PM (permalink)
    Even 16K on your last set-up seems a bit low, I got 16K on a i7 4790K and GTX 1080.
    https://www.3dmark.com/fs/12566027
     
    Your 6850K was more than enough for that Titan X, you are actually in need of a GPU upgrade more than anything. Here is when I upgraded to a i7 9700K and RTX 2080:
    https://www.3dmark.com/fs/20572464
     
    I just checked 3DMark results to see how you compare and I noticed you are the only one with a i9 9900X and an original Titan X. If that tells you anything... it suggests your video card needs updating. Your i7 6850K was overclocked to 4.5GHz on that 16K test you mentioned, so I would keep that in mind when comparing the results.

    6850K results:
    https://www.3dmark.com/fs/16761033

    9900X results:
    https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21212533
     
    You can see that the 9900X scored 7K higher on the CPU score. But your GPU score was a little higher on the i7 6850K and you may have been running an overclock on the GPU at that time, it does not always show on the 3DMark results.

    Intel i9 10900K
    MSI MEG Z490 ACE
    ASUS TUF RTX 3090
    32GB G.Skill Trident Z Royal 4000MHz CL18
    SuperFlower Platinum SE 1200w
    Samsung EVO 970 1TB and Crucial P5 1TB
    Cougar Vortex CF-V12HPB x9
    #5
    Victorg25
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 6
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 11/29/2019
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 0
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Monday, January 06, 2020 8:25 AM (permalink)
    This problem happened more than three times.
    #6
    Cool GTX
    EVGA Forum Moderator
    • Total Posts : 31353
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 12/12/2010
    • Location: Folding for the Greater Good
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 123
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Monday, January 06, 2020 6:01 PM (permalink)
    Victorg25
    This problem happened more than three times.


    what problem are you referring to ?

    Learn your way around the EVGA Forums, Rules & limits on new accounts Ultimate Self-Starter Thread For New Members

    I am a Volunteer Moderator - not an EVGA employee

    Older RIG projects RTX Project  Nibbler


     When someone does not use reason to reach their conclusion in the first place; you can't use reason to convince them otherwise!
    #7
    ty_ger07
    Insert Custom Title Here
    • Total Posts : 16602
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 4/11/2008
    • Location: traveler
    • Status: offline
    • Ribbons : 271
    Re: X299 Slower Than X99?? Monday, January 06, 2020 6:41 PM (permalink)
    Most of his posts make little sense. I think they have ulterior motives. He bumped one sort-of-old thread attempting to post a link to some software.

    ASRock Z77 • Intel Core i7 3770K • EVGA GTX 1080 • Samsung 850 Pro • Seasonic PRIME 600W Titanium

    #8
    Jump to: