arestavo

enkrypt3d

 
This is an old pic of my rig with my 1080's in SLI and 5960x... I've since mounted the lights... and I love how my new CPU never gets above 40C under load... the 5960x runs pretty damn hot.

Not bad! Yeah, non-overclocked Xeons run cool compared to the voltage hungry i7s. Even at default settings this 1660V3 only pulled about 1.05V (not that I'd run a fully unlocked Xeon at default clocks!).

enkrypt3d
so what, that's it??? After all that drama? No "You were right all along"? Come on man........ @arestavo
[font="verdana, geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold"] 

arestavo

enkrypt3d

arestavo

enkrypt3d
so what, that's it??? After all that drama? No "You were right all along"? Come on man........ @arestavo
[font="verdana, geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold"] 

If by "you were right all along" you are referring to my rectitude, then I agree!
 
My 4K Ultra:

 
Your 4K Ultra:

 
My 1080P Ultra:

 
Your 1080P Ultra:

<p>so what, that's it??? After all that drama? No "You were right all along"? Come on man........ @arestavo</p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold;">&nbsp;</span></p>
 
I still don't get your point but whatever... the difference is within the margin of error 2-5 FPS isn't going to be noticeable. So again, what is your problem exactly? And why did I have to "prove" anything? What was I proving? Again I ask: Are you really that surprised that a e5-2696 v4 doesn't bottleneck the 1080 Ti? Is that what you mean? And what's with the attitude? Who cares!

You also stated that you get 40-50FPS average at 4K ultra. I called you on it, and your own results show it. 
 
That's the point, that's what I was out to prove. You tracking now? Am I a self-righteous prig? You bet!
 
As for bottlenecks - I guarantee you that a 7700K at 4.6+GHz blows both of our chips out of the water and will get even better minimum FPS and average FPS rates - so technically BOTH of our CPUs are a bottleneck for the GPU. I'm certain that you're aware that in any computer there's ALWAYS a bottleneck somewhere, no exceptions. No, 5 to 7 FPS difference is actually quite large, and I DO consider it a significant difference. In addition the built-in benchmark fails to test night time driving - you want to see FPS drops? Drive a vehicle at night at ultra settings and watch those shadow calculations on the CPU kill FPS.
 
That said, I fully agree that results are often subjective in what is acceptable to one user is unacceptable to another. Case and point being 4K ultra (or even 4K very high or high) dropping below 55FPS - it's completely experience breaking, and it's why I run that game at 1080P ultra. You may not have an issue running at 32FPS - I assure you that I do. I hate it when the game drops below 55FPS, let alone a slideshow ~30.

GTXJackBauer
Arestavo, you went full bipolar on enkrypt.  You basically taunted him and tried saying he was lying or that he didn't actually have all that hardware or at least that's how you were coming out as.  Now you're saying about FPS difference?   Dude, you seriously need to find a better hobby and not challenge everything you see or do because you're not always in the right.  Example one, you scare people away from M.2 because you feel SATA is faster.  (Facepalm)  Because your "test results" said so and everyone should bite the bullet.  Anyways, carry on and lets get this thread back on track.  Less bi-polarism.

arestavo

enkrypt3d

arestavo

enkrypt3d

arestavo

enkrypt3d
so what, that's it??? After all that drama? No "You were right all along"? Come on man........ @arestavo
[font="verdana, geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold"] 

If by "you were right all along" you are referring to my rectitude, then I agree!
 
My 4K Ultra
 
Your 4K Ultra:
1080P Ultra:
 
 
Your 1080P Ultra:
 

<p>so what, that's it??? After all that drama? No "You were right all along"? Come on man........ @arestavo</p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold;">&nbsp;</span></p>
 
I still don't get your point but whatever... the difference is within the margin of error 2-5 FPS isn't going to be noticeable. So again, what is your problem exactly? And why did I have to "prove" anything? What was I proving? Again I ask: Are you really that surprised that a e5-2696 v4 doesn't bottleneck the 1080 Ti? Is that what you mean? And what's with the attitude? Who cares!

You also stated that you get 40-50FPS average at 4K ultra. I called you on it, and your own results show it. 
 
That's the point, that's what I was out to prove. You tracking now? Am I a self-righteous prig? You bet!
 
As for bottlenecks - I guarantee you that a 7700K at 4.6+GHz blows both of our chips out of the water and will get even better minimum FPS and average FPS rates - so technically BOTH of our CPUs are a bottleneck for the GPU. I'm certain that you're aware that in any computer there's ALWAYS a bottleneck somewhere, no exceptions. No, 5 to 7 FPS difference is actually quite large, and I DO consider it a significant difference. In addition the built-in benchmark fails to test night time driving - you want to see FPS drops? Drive a vehicle at night at ultra settings and watch those shadow calculations on the CPU kill FPS.
 
That said, I fully agree that results are often subjective in what is acceptable to one user is unacceptable to another. Case and point being 4K ultra (or even 4K very high or high) dropping below 55FPS - it's completely experience breaking, and it's why I run that game at 1080P ultra. You may not have an issue running at 32FPS - I assure you that I do. I hate it when the game drops below 55FPS, let alone a slideshow ~30.

Running on ultra is stupid as the visual improvements are minimal over disabling temporal AA and things that really don't have a huge impact on visual quality... that's why I usally run FXAA and be done with it. With those settings I certainly do hit 40-50FPS. You can have your opinion but this isn't just a gaming rig. Our 4k scores are nearly identical with a margin of error of 2 FPS which is as close to identical as you can get. If you think you can notice a 2 FPS difference you're lying.
 
I use it for tons of different things for work (virtualization, 3d applications, OpenCL / Cuda work loads and other heavy workloads) Gaming is just a bonus. The reason I went with the 1080 Ti, I had 2 x 1080's and the power draw was insane for very little SLI scaling in games... the 1080 Ti easily replaces both 1080's in SLI since SLI doesn't always scale well with games. Anyway you've wasted my time enough. Good day.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!
 
Edit: and for the record, 4K Ultra with FXAA set still drops down to the 30s - you can have it, I want none of it.

arestavo

iSpot

enkrypt3d
I ended up going with the Xeon E5-2696 V4 OEM (non-ES) :D Cant wait!

This should work just fine on my x99 classified with the latest bios? Not planning on going with ECC memory or anything... let me know guys thanks!

Great choice, please let us see some benchmarks when you get your rig up and running.

Still waiting on that screenshot of your multiplier running above stock turbo boost.

rlb9682

enkrypt3d
I tried setting my multiplier to x37 and it just gets reset to the default auto... Is there some secret sauce in the bios to run this 2699 v4 chip at 3700Mhz (max turbo) all the time? 

enkrypt3d
no dice... Thinking of going with the Asus x99 deluxe II... seeing some issues with not getting enough PCI lanes for my 3 NVME SSD's... but i doubt I'll be able to ever run this chip at 3.6-3.7Ghz all the time...

bcavnaugh
Are you Bumping your Thread

bcavnaugh
Best of luck with that ASUS MB