Realistically does the SSD speed matter past a certain point as well? IOPS definitely do matter but sheer speed past a point… I mean it can help but even from testing my PCIE ssds vs normal ones… Doesn’t matter unless you are moving truly massive files. Which… Due to the size limits of a lot of Ssds is not really possible anyway.
Why would you want a dual M.2 raid if you didn’t have something you think might benefit from it? High speed video scratch disk? animation workflow with a lot of massive files? Idk, but either way it would be stupid to buy x370 if you wanted to actually get the most out of your raid array and also have tons of connectivity like he was outlining.
Thanks for all the suggestions and opinions. It is helping me to notice what are the limits of the different platforms.
This computer will be my main workstation; I need a computer that performs as best as possible because I will be doing some intensive tasks that I need to finish as fast as possible. Also, I need a computer that is able to transfer files through a 10Gbe network to a storage server, and I need it to be fast. This are the things that my workload demands. X99’s platform is more appealing to me, because it will give me more room for future expansions.
I didn’t know Intel was going to release a new platform. May be I will wait until it is released.
Current rumors put X299 being released around august, although those are rumors so nobody knows how reliable those will be. Honestly X99 and X370 are both great platforms, so I think you’d be happy either way. Your going to pay more for X99 but your also going to get more, its all tradeoffs. Good luck!
2 Likes
Definitely advise going with AM4. The price to performance is outstanding. I am with everyone here who says that raid 0 m.2 is kind of pointless. I don’t see why it would be necessary.
Well, NVMe RAID 0 is not pointless if you want to saturate the 40Gbe link. That is the main reason why I need it.
does some ryzen vs x99 video editing test and talks about his experience.
specs of the ryzen system
specs of intel system in the first vid.
I still don’t understand why that would be necessary. As far as I can tell, it isn’t something that is actually needed. Can you explain to me why it is that you are needing this much bandwidth? I understand moving large files regularly can take some time, but needing that much bandwidth seems like it would largely be unnecessary.
If he wants to actually saturate a 40Gbps link, he actually needs a pair of 960 pro’s in raid 0 to be able to deal with that much incoming data. You’d be hard drive speed limited with anything lesser than that.
Ok, you may be right about that. It is a bit overkill. To be honest, the 10Gbe network will be required because I project more than 10 computers connected transferring files to the storage server and, most likely, to the main workstation. As I said, I want to be able to transfer, or directly read from the storage, these large backup files, without loosing too much time with the operations I’ll be doing. For example, I will be doing data recovery on dd images. The fastest I can get, the better.
I just found a 6950x CPU at Amazon… I don’t know if it makes any sense to pay that much for a CPU that it is comparable to the ~$600 AMD counterpart. I guess it all comes down to how many PCIe lanes I’ll need.
Replying to myself, X99 is just perfect, but quite expensive.
I think that a single 960, a 1700x, and a decent motherboard should be enough, from what I understand about what you will actually be doing. I could be wrong though. And I seem to be more adverse to wasting money than most people. If you don’t actually need it, then don’t spend money on it.
If your willing to ditch thunderbolt 3, step down to a single or dual 10Gb link, and move to 1 m.2, you could get away with a ryzen system. 16 cpu lanes to the graphics card, 4 gen 3 chipset lanes to the m.2, and 8 or 4 gen 2 chipset lanes to a single/dual 10gb nic would work.
Well yeah the 6950X is a 10 core 20 threads part.
But its really insanely expensive.
It of course blows Ryzen out of the water.
But for the price of a 6950X alone, you could allmost build 2 Ryzen 1700 8 core rigs basiclly.
So yeah, thats a bit hard to justify i think.
You could also eventually look at Xeon E5 for X99.
But those chips lack on overclockability and clock speeds a bit.
Of course a 5930K or a 6850K on X99 would a decent middle of the road choice,
with the full 40 pci-e lanes directlly available to the cpu.
You might be able to find them on sale somewhere.
Or in case of a 5930K you might find those used for cheaper.
summary of thread:
if you want to save money but lose expandibilty + some features, but still have most if not more performance, ryzen.
If you have no worries about budget, just go X99. You will spend a ton more for the CPU performance but you get ALLLLLLLL the expandibilty, If you want even more expandibilty than that go dual LGA 2011 V3 and xeons.
also i have no idea how to spell expandibility and theres no correction for it so oh well lol
</>
strange i didnt already have that in … k lol
Meh, it’s English. Theoretical quantum mechanics makes more sense than this language.
1 Like
there is that
Yeah well Ryzen is to good to deny for productivity in terms of price to performance,
if you forget about the 1800X for a second.
However yeah, if topic starter needs more pci-e lanes and Thunderbolt,
X99 is basiclly gonne be the best option.
However its not the most economical option.