Question New Intel build - what Gen5PCIe, Gen4PCIe, and 2x32GB RAM should I go for.

[MnsoonMally]

Speccing up a new high-end rig for Gaming and Production, in January or February of 2025.

I've yet to determine which LGA1851 Motherboard as yet, will wait until in the new year, before finalising my choice.

Something a bit more 'solid' I'm pretty sure, are best available SSD's and RAM.

I've done some research myself, but am interested in other people's opinion on the following:

I will be getting a Gen5PCIe SSD - 4TB- Partitioned, to act as my OS and Primary (Fast) Gaming Drive (C: & D.

I will be getting 2 x Gen4.0PCIe SSD's - 4TB (each), one to act as Apps storage, and non-speed-critical Gaming (E and one for mass storage (F.

Supported by fast RAM (>=8000MT) in 2 x 32GB sticks, low-latency.

Any recommendations for the above 3 items, from your personal usage/experience; or even reasons to avoid a certain type of product?

 

[Lafong]

Are you willing to consider CUDIMMs?

There's only 3 Core Ultras on socket 1851 available now. Are you locked into one of those 3, rather than waiting for what might appear in the first quarter of 2025?

Budget not really a factor?

 

[MnsoonMally]

Are you willing to consider CUDIMMs?

There's only 3 Core Ultras on socket 1851 available now. Are you locked into one of those 3, rather than waiting for what might appear in the first quarter of 2025?

Budget not really a factor?

Yes, CUDIMM's are pretty much standard for the newer LGA1851 higher-end Motherboards.

The absolute high-end Motherboards, 2 of them, are well over 1.3kEuro, so will be avoiding them - my requirements really, are 1 x Gen5 SSD, 2 x Gen4 SSD, Fast RAM (CUDIMM @ 8000MT+), and enough high-end USB connections.

All but the ASUS ROG Z890 Extreme and the Godlike are within budget.

 

[Lafong]

Saw a review using CUDIMMs in the last 3 or 4 days, using either a Core Ultra 265k or 285k. Can't remember the site, but the reviewer was highly impressed. Speeds over 8000 somewhere if I recall...nor can I recall how significant that speed was in real world perceived performance.

 

[MnsoonMally]

Saw a review using CUDIMMs in the last 3 or 4 days, using either a Core Ultra 265k or 285k. Can't remember the site, but the reviewer was highly impressed. Speeds over 8000 somewhere if I recall...nor can I recall how significant that speed was in real world perceived performance.

They're currently quoting something like 6000MT as being 'the sweetspot' between price, stability, and speed.

I've seen all of the top end Motherboards, about a dozen of them from ASUS ROG, MSI, Gigabyte, and one more I forget, have been proven stable at well over 8000MT. So I'll aim to set speed at 8000MT, overclocking, but not crazily.

 

[MnsoonMally]

Having spent some time speccing up Motherboards for a potential LGA1851 build in the new year, the one I deem 'most practical/efficient', (which is best value for outlay of cash versus what I'll be connecting/using), seems to be the MSI MEG Z890 Ace.

I'll be connecting 1 x PCIe5.0 SSD, partitioned, to use as my OS and 'Hi-Speed Gaming' drives.
I'll be connecting 2 x PCIe4.0 SSD's to act as my Apps and 'Lo-Speed Gaming Drive', and as Bulk Storage.

All 3 SSD's will be 4TB.

Does anyone currently use this exact board, and has populated similarly?

I'm looking for conformation of what M.2 Slots to use for the above selection, to avoid any loss of lanes to the GPU.

Also, if the M.2 Slots are 'directly available' without having to use a DIMM.2 slot.

Anyone able to clarify for me? I'll look at YouTube and also download / read the manual - but people's actual experience is also valuable to my thinking here.

 

[USAFRet]

Does anyone currently use this exact board, and has populated similarly?

Since this line of motherboards and CPUs is so new, highly unlikely you'll see anyone with the exact same config.

I'm sort of inline with that type of board, Ultra 9 or 7 CPU, and NVMe drive mix. But I'm waiting to pull the trigger.

 

[MnsoonMally]

Since this line of motherboards and CPUs is so new, highly unlikely you'll see anyone with the exact same config.

I'm sort of inline with that type of board, Ultra 9 or 7 CPU, and NVMe drive mix. But I'm waiting to pull the trigger.

I'm in the exact same boat as you - waiting to pull the trigger on the following conditions:

285K CPU has a new release, which is better/faster. The current one doesn't really justify itself as an i9 replacement, as yet.

Win11Pro sorts itself out for this newer line of CPU's.

No other new Motherboard comes out that surpasses it (a couple already do, but for double the price with no benefit to my use case).

I can justify it, by remaining with Intel, if AMD new CPU about to come out doesn't wipe the floor with it.

*Also ex-airforce - Royal Air Force in my case.

 

[USAFRet]

I'm in the exact same boat as you - waiting to pull the trigger on the following conditions:

285K CPU has a new release, which is better/faster. The current one doesn't really justify itself as an i9 replacement, as yet.

Win11Pro sorts itself out for this newer line of CPU's.

No other new Motherboard comes out that surpasses it (a couple already do, but for double the price with no benefit to my use case).

I can justify it, by remaining with Intel, if AMD new CPU about to come out doesn't wipe the floor with it.

*Also ex-airforce - Royal Air Force in my case.

You'll see many people ragging on the Ultras as "THEY STINK!!! THEY SUCK!!"

Well, maybe not so much.

What I've seen is that that mostly don't live up to the supposed hype of what they could be.
But still...better than last gen systems.

 

[MnsoonMally]

You'll see many people ragging on the Ultras as "THEY STINK!!! THEY SUCK!!"

Well, maybe not so much.

What I've seen is that that mostly don't live up to the supposed hype of what they could be.
But still...better than last gen systems.

I'll need to see a bigger improvement in performance over i9 before I spend cash.

Some of this, I'm pretty certain, is down to the new Win11 Update, and not all to do with the Core Ultra 285K CPU. I don't think it's been optimised yet.

But the CPU itself needs to have a newer, better version out of it, too. They need to improve on their current line of offerings - 285K is not enough.

More cores, more onboard memory, faster clocking - whatever it takes. I'm sure it'll come.

I can't buy until at least mid-January, maybe until February anyway, so will be tracking 'best-in-class' parts, and their optimal configuration.

 

[USAFRet]

I'll need to see a bigger improvement in performance over i9 before I spend cash.

Some of this, I'm pretty certain, is down to the new Win11 Update, and not all to do with the Core Ultra 285K CPU. I don't think it's been optimised yet.

But the CPU itself needs to have a newer, better version out of it, too. They need to improve on their current line of offerings - 285K is not enough.

More cores, more onboard memory, faster clocking - whatever it takes. I'm sure it'll come.

I can't buy until at least mid-January, maybe until February anyway, so will be tracking 'best-in-class' parts, and their optimal configuration.

I'm building a new PC anyway.

Be it i9, Ultra 7/9, Ryzen 9....undecided.

 

[MnsoonMally]

My position, precisely.

Late January, maybe February = new Rig.

Which of the three technologies? Can't make that decision right now - can only track what they give me in return for performance, versus cost, versus configuration, versus my Intel loyalty, versus Rig longevity.

 

[geofelt]

Do not be much swayed by unrealistic vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so. They are done on new/clean drives for repeatability.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick.

My take is to not partition a ssd. There is no performance impact, and inevitably, one or the other partition fills up with room left available on the other.
Gen5 is fine, but I doubt that paying extra for it is much worth it.
I stick with Samsung as a quality product. They make their own nand chips and controllers. They can control quality and integration.
Most others assemble a ssd from parts sourced elsewhere

On ram. The first requirement is to buy enough up front.
Adding ram later may not work; ram must be matched.
Fast speed makes a difference to integrated graphics. But, ram speed is not so important elsewhere.
Faster ram is accompanied by higher latency which negates some of the benefit.
Try dividing the speed by the cas.

 

[USAFRet]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-9950X

 

[MnsoonMally]

Do not be much swayed by unrealistic vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so. They are done on new/clean drives for repeatability.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick.

My take is to not partition a ssd. There is no performance impact, and inevitably, one or the other partition fills up with room left available on the other.
Gen5 is fine, but I doubt that paying extra for it is much worth it.
I stick with Samsung as a quality product. They make their own nand chips and controllers. They can control quality and integration.
Most others assemble a ssd from parts sourced elsewhere

On ram. The first requirement is to buy enough up front.
Adding ram later may not work; ram must be matched.
Fast speed makes a difference to integrated graphics. But, ram speed is not so important elsewhere.
Faster ram is accompanied by higher latency which negates some of the benefit.
Try dividing the speed by the cas.

Benchmarks are all independent. 8000MT is tested just fine, no issues.

 

[MnsoonMally]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-9950X

9950X3D due out soon. Potential Intel de-railer.

 

[USAFRet]

9950X3D due out soon. Potential Intel de-railer.

We shall see.

 

[MnsoonMally]

After doing some research this afternoon, comparing a few stats, for 'best PCIe5.0 4TB SSD', I find most of them fall into very similar figures anyway - in fact - many use the same parts from suppliers.

But, I found this, which seems to be 'the winner'.

Anyone any comments, or other suggestions that might beat it, performance-wise?

MSI Spatium M580 Pro Frozr

 

[USAFRet]

After doing some research this afternoon, comparing a few stats, for 'best PCIe5.0 4TB SSD', I find most of them fall into very similar figures anyway - in fact - many use the same parts from suppliers.

But, I found this, which seems to be 'the winner'.

Anyone any comments, or other suggestions that might beat it, performance-wise?

MSI Spatium M580 Pro Frozr

I posit that, in normal consumer use, you'd not see any measurable performance difference, among any of the top tier manufacturers.

Samsung, Crucial, WD, MSI....

Like car shopping, and you only look at the published top speed.
One car has a listed speed of 155mph, the other at 158mph.
Obviously, the faster one is 'better', right?

 

[MnsoonMally]

I kind of agree. This is why I like to spec-up say, the top 6 or so.

This one matches top speeds I've found so far, while achieving a 2M hour MTBF, which is about 15% above most others.

The other big factor will be price, when it comes to actually buying. If performance is going to be just 2% or 3% better but say 15% more expensive, I'll look at other options - particularly what gives top or very-close-to-top performance, that may be on offer.

Typical rates for S-Read and S-Write I see are:
14,100 / 12,600
14,000 / 12,000
12,400 / 11,800

So looking at those, I'd go for the top one, as mentioned.

If too pricey compared to the 14,000 / 12,000 competitors, especially if one of them was on special offer, I'd plump for that.

12,400 / 11,800 then falls off below a performance level I'd be looking at, so would pretty much ignore......unless the price was too good to ignore.

 

[USAFRet]

That Sequential speed, the big number that everyone keys on, is basically irrelevant, unless you are transferring large blocks of data between 2 such drives.

The number you should be looking at is the 4k Random.
That no one ever publishes...

 

[MnsoonMally]

For this particular one, its below; which very much seems the 'standard'; which is why I didn't detail it ;-)

1.5M IOPS

1.55M IOPS

 

[MnsoonMally]

For this particular one, its below; which very much seems the 'standard'; which is why I didn't detail it ;-)

1.5M IOPS

1.55M IOPS

*it's also the 15% longevity of it, as well as these speeds that get my interest........and it's longevity is a full 25% more than the only other rival I spot, that can match it's speed.

 

[MnsoonMally]

MSI Spatium M580 Pro Frozr

2280 Double-Sided

4TB

14,100

12,600

1.5M IOPS

1.55M IOPS

2.0MH

 

[USAFRet]

*it's also the 15% longevity of it, as well as these speeds that get my interest........and it's longevity is a full 25% more than the only other rival I spot, that can match it's speed.

And that 2M hours MTBF is.....228 years.
Mostly irrelevant...