- Aug 30, 2018
- 191
- 68
- 10,690
Results scale slower. I tested it some and a bunch in the past. You can't beat Optane's responsiveness.
Last edited:
Chung Leong
Reputable
- Dec 6, 2019
- 494
- 193
- 4,860
In finance, they call it "picking up pennies in front of a steam rollers". The investment strategy involves earning tiny returns continually at the risk of getting completely crushed one day. Choosing AMD over Intel on the basis of benchmarks is sort of like that. Here and there you save some a few milliseconds. Then one day you suffer a delay measured in seconds .
bigdragon
Distinguished
- Oct 19, 2011
- 1,114
- 562
- 20,160
There are so many options to tweak and features available on the x570 platform that it's no surprise it would be slower to boot than z490. AMD firmware tends to be significantly bigger and more configurable than Intel's firmware. More UEFI modules, DXE drivers, and options means more boot time.
Yes, Intel boots faster but gives you less control. AMD boots slower but provides more control. If you're judging boot speed, then Intel is always going to win. If you're more interested in features, tinkering, nailing those settings just right, and using newer standards before they're fully mature, then AMD is going to win. The results are less a competition and more a preference.
Yes, Intel boots faster but gives you less control. AMD boots slower but provides more control. If you're judging boot speed, then Intel is always going to win. If you're more interested in features, tinkering, nailing those settings just right, and using newer standards before they're fully mature, then AMD is going to win. The results are less a competition and more a preference.
Speaking about the bios.
What bios version was used on the AMD board?
i've had a few bios updates in the last 3 months on my x570 board that has sped up my boot times.
Last edited:
TerryLaze
Polypheme
- May 9, 2016
- 9,482
- 2,428
- 60,940
You don't need a review to tell you that.
Load up a game and measure the time it takes then go to windows power settings and put the CPU to 50% ,or any number you like, max (maximum processor state) do it again and see if something changes.
TerryLaze
Polypheme
- May 9, 2016
- 9,482
- 2,428
- 60,940
Yes and every usb3.1 flash drive is faster than every usb 2 one...
If it actually has faster transfer and seek rates ok but the PCI version alone doesn't give you any speed improvement.
I don't see that making a difference at all.
And the optane drive should provide a faster boot than any of the PCie 4.0 drives.
They shine in sequential file transfers, which is not what the windows boot process is doing.
Agreed.
My machine goes to sleep 90% of the time and maybe do a full shutdown once every 3 to 6 months. So boot time really doesn't matter for me.
Last edited:
- Aug 30, 2018
- 191
- 68
- 10,690
It was v3.40 on the X570 Taichi - AMD AGESA Combo-AM4 V2 1.0.8.0
I did also test on an ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WI-FI) with the same AMD AM4 AGESA V2 1.0.8.0 (UEFI Version 2206) and it performed similarly.
The Samsung 980 PRO is not released yet. Current Gen4 SSDs boot slower than the 1.5TB Intel Optane SSD 905P in both systems.
A lot of triggered AMD fanboys in damage control mode in this thread, lol
nofanneeded
Respectable
- Sep 29, 2019
- 1,541
- 251
- 2,090
1- First , You cant compare two different motherboards in booting times , because hardware wise these two motherboard are not 1:1 identical .
2- Second , Using Optane is wrong for intel is more optimized to recognize Optane SSD faster on booting .. you should test this again using something neutral like Samsung NVME 970 pro , or 970 evo plus.
2- Second , Using Optane is wrong for intel is more optimized to recognize Optane SSD faster on booting .. you should test this again using something neutral like Samsung NVME 970 pro , or 970 evo plus.
Agreed would like to see this tested with a Regular nvme SSD on both just to see what the results are.
LOL, that what I was thinking. When the most exciting thing is to determine that one system boots a whole 4 seconds faster they must be really board.
Unolocogringo
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,770
- 658
- 38,390
My PCs get rebooted for windows updates and every three months for cleaning. 4 dogs and 3 cats produce a lot of dust and hair on a regular basis.
So a few seconds is trivial as long as they run folding@home 24/7/365 otherwise.
So a few seconds is trivial as long as they run folding@home 24/7/365 otherwise.
After next month boot times and shutdowns is all Intel will win. I swapped my video cards and boot time increased significantly.
hotaru.hino
Glorious
- Sep 1, 2020
- 9,583
- 3,492
- 46,090
We might as well throw every cross-CPU comparison out the window then simply because they didn't use the same motherboard.
Do you have any proof of this? Just because it's Intel on Intel doesn't mean much. I may as well claim they should've use an NVIDIA video card because AMD systems can recognize and configure a Radeon card faster.
gio2vanni86
Distinguished
- May 3, 2009
- 122
- 3
- 18,695
Strange my boot times on my amd system are about 7 seconds at start. 4 at restart. Dont have an intel to test, but its definitely not 17. But its running off my nvme gen4 slot. So maybe thats why its fast.
ikjadoon
Distinguished
- Feb 25, 2006
- 1,983
- 44
- 19,810
This actually was an interesting test. I wonder why there are differences: UEFI? Chipset? Motherboard? Or the actual CPUs? I wonder if ASRock could shed some light.
Both platforms are excellent in terms of features (e.g., ignoring Intel CPU's PPC advantage / AMD CPU's nT & power advantage), so it's good to see where manufacturers can improve in terms of polish.
I'd rather read this kind of testing today than most of the rumor / clickbait traffic infesting most news outlets these days. Cheers for actually unique content.
Both platforms are excellent in terms of features (e.g., ignoring Intel CPU's PPC advantage / AMD CPU's nT & power advantage), so it's good to see where manufacturers can improve in terms of polish.
I'd rather read this kind of testing today than most of the rumor / clickbait traffic infesting most news outlets these days. Cheers for actually unique content.
Thinking about this. is it possible that the extensive number of CPUs that fit into an AM4 socket VS the very limited number of CPUs that fit into LGA 1200 puts the AMD in a position that initialization is a much more complex process.
is this the "boot" process or the time from power to login. because the post may have a larger impact than the "boot" when you have these short load times.
(I remember a 386 being upgraded to windows 98... the stopwatch had timer of 999 minutes and turned red. it isn't a boot up timer but just makes me think about how far the computers have come.)
is this the "boot" process or the time from power to login. because the post may have a larger impact than the "boot" when you have these short load times.
(I remember a 386 being upgraded to windows 98... the stopwatch had timer of 999 minutes and turned red. it isn't a boot up timer but just makes me think about how far the computers have come.)
I agree with this. Most people (or all the people I know) do not use optane. The results might be slower with a samsung evo, but definitely interested in seeing those results just to know how much the optane is worth it for both intel and amd systems.
d0x360
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2016
- 115
- 47
- 18,620
My thoughts exactly, possibly because the socket supports more cpu's.
My i7 5820k (6 cores @ 4.4ghz), 32 gigs ddr4 with windows fast boot disabled manages to go from bios to windows logged in and ready to go in 12 seconds.
I have windows and only windows installed on a 220 gig nvme ssd. My system isn't exactly brand new... Although I'm probably going to upgrade to ryzen before year's end. That said it still boots lightning quick and plays everything just fine. In fact I don't think I've seen a game push the CPU above 65% and I have a 2080ti, play at 4k and see 99% gpu use.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram