Intel 13th Gen CPU's

[RCHeliguy]

I haven't bothered to set up an NVMe drive yet. All SSD's just because they are so easy to flip between cases.

 

[Spinelli]

I used to run 2 HDDs, 1 SSD, and one NVMe. I got rid of them and now run 3 NVMes. Tiny, invisible, light, no cables. Taking them out with the 1 or 2 tiny screws, and sometimes even with the GPU in the way (depending on the slot) can definitely be a little annoying at times but not a huge deal for me.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Who cares what it looks like inside ?

It's just a black box that will be replaced with another black box.

 

[Spinelli]

I agree. I have the exact same mentality when it comes to PCs.

It's not for the looks though. I "work" in the case fairly often. Whether it's buying/selling different parts, benchmarking and comparing different parts, upgrading, or whatever. After I removed 2 CD/DVD/BD drives, 2 HDDs, and 1 SATA SSD, and added 3 NVMe drives, there was a big difference for me; things are much easier & convenient (and, often, quicker) without all the cables.

There's also a fairly noticeable difference in weight. I have a heavy case (CM HAF 932 - one of the cooling cases in the industry to this day) and move the PC around fairly often so the weight makes a difference for me to.

If I just had the PC on the ground in some corner and barely touched it besides once every 2 or 3 years to upgrade, then I would have kept the old setup.

 

[RCHeliguy]

The SSD's mean nothing in terms of ease of access. My last couple cases mount the SSD's on the backside of the MB so they are completely out of sight unless I pop the right side open. Even the SATA cables disappear a few centimeters from the back edge of the MB. So they aren't in the way of anything and are not visible. In addition the drives are instantly accessible by popping the side off. There are no bolts or anything, just pop and there are the drives.

I'll get NVME drives someday. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with them, but they just aren't on my list of things that matter. They don't impact my VR frame rate and SSD's over HDD's are where you see the big speed gains when loading software. NVMe's are a very marginal improvement over that.

Maybe with my next MB, but I already have a 2Tb boot SSD and a 4Tb game SSD, and I'm not near 50% full yet. So still not itchy yet.

 

[Spinelli]

The SSD's mean nothing in terms of ease of access.

They do in my situations. Getting rid of 2 HDDs and 1 SATA SSD (at one point it was 2 HDDs and 2 SATA SSDs) made a significant difference for me working with the PC. 2 HDDs and 2 SATA SSDs is 12 plugs (SATA on device and MB, power) and 1 or 2 thick PSU cables that I don't have to ever worry about plugging in, unplugging, labelling (often forget which cable on the MB side is for which device), and routing/managing.

Speed is a minor difference. I wouldnt get an NVMe SSD over a SATA SSD for speed unless you move a lot of large files then there's a huge difference due to the sequential read & write speeds of PCI-e 4 NVMes usually in the 5000-7000 MB/s range while SATA tops out a touch over 500. 95% of drive usage for 99% of users is small, "random" files though and, for that, even a PCI-e 4 NVMe drive from 2022 is not much faster than a SATA SSD from, let's say, 2017.

If I was buying drives for truly top-most performance in day-to-day tasks, gaming, etc. I'd get an Intel Optane drive. An Intel 905p from 2018 blows away new PCI-e 4 NVMe drives in most random read/write tests. Intel Optane or 3D-Xpoint or whatever, should have been what all the new drives transitioned to. Look below at the performance of the 905p and the insane P5800X. So sad Intel announced the abandonment of Optane a few months back.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Like you said "speed is a minor difference."

Realistically it's only for shaving a few seconds off long load times.

So because you didn't spend a few seconds with a marker to put numbers on the cable ends, they are suddenly a horrible mess?

Let's continue to debate something that matters so little that neither of us cares.

 

[RasmusP]

I do have to agree though, that the longest part of doing my cable management was getting the sata data and power cables to lay flat to get my case closed without pressure points.

But that's down to my meshify S2 needing just a few cm longer cables than the next shorter cables available.
So I have 10cm for each of the 4 cables that I need to "fold".

I also agree that once they are fixated, it's not an issue anymore and I can do everything inside the case without needing to re-do anything.

These tiny screws however... And the placement beneath the gpu...


Anyway, I did notice a speed boost in general when going from my Crucial mx500 to the WD 850x.

Not worth the extra costs though. But I needed more space and the 2.5" ssds stayed pretty expensive for a year, while the 850x was on sale during Black Friday for 175€ instead of over 240€.
The mx500 was still 165€ for 2 TB so an easy decision.

The fun starts when loading up an unreal engine demo that easily takes my 32 GB of ram and then puts another 20 GB in the page file.

I've also put my "modding" games on that drive. Witcher 3, (AC), Gothic II.
Sometimes delicate when combining mods, so I like to do a full backup before messing around and copying 60 GB is way more fun with the new nvme

Here are the speeds just for completion:

Mx500 2 TB:

WD black 850x 2 TB:

 

[BillyBobSenna]

I enjoy making my computers look nice and tidy. Adding drives with no ables helps that objective. Sim rig cable management is a similar exercise.

 

[Spinelli]

So because you didn't spend a few seconds with a marker to put numbers on the cable ends, they are suddenly a horrible mess?

Let's continue to debate something that matters so little that neither of us cares.

I'm not debating any thing. I replied to the video some one else posted about PCI-E lanes, you posted regarding some experiences / thoughts you had regarding your PC and storage drives, I did the same. Then you went off about "who cares", physical access times, work space, tidiness, etc. You also twisted what I said - disregarding most of my points and stating that I think everything is a horrible mess just because I didn't add markers to cable ends.

I even pointed out how NVMes are usually barely faster than SATA SSDs, how I don't care about pure looks of my PC either, etc. - I was trying to show support for some of the things you said.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Keep in mine that I FINALLY broke down and updated my boot partition so it doesn't require legacy support. LOL!

So living in the dark ages over here.

 

[Spinelli]

Some people say most 13900KS reviews are pointless because the 13900KS is meant to overclocked and also, hopefully, have a better memory controller - a lot of reviewers don't often take advantage of these. Well, here's a "maxed out" 13900K VS 13900KS comparison:

Benchmarks start @ 11:30

 

[wajdi]

Do you guys OC your I9-13900K? Is it worth to do it?

 

[RCHeliguy]

Do you guys OC your I9-13900K? Is it worth to do it?

I didn't.

 

[RasmusP]

Do you guys OC your I9-13900K? Is it worth to do it?

For simracing, the only sensible option would be to raise the boost clock of 1-4 cores used and then set a power limit.
And also disable most of the e-cores to free up the cache for the P cores.
From what I've read, this keeps the overall power consumption a lot lower while slightly raising single core performance.

Some people in comments ended up with just 70W and higher fps for AC.

 

[Neilski]

disable most of the e-cores

Oooh, I had been assuming that it was all or nothing with them!

 

[RasmusP]

Oooh, I had been assuming that it was all or nothing with them!

Good question!
I know I could disable 0 to 5 cores on my 10600k so I just assumed that it would be possible...

I didn't verify what I've came across in YouTube and article comments!

But it's basically how all modern CPUs can be optimized for simracing.
Disable all the cores that you don't need and then push the best cores to the highest boost clock possible while keeping the not-important cores as low as needed to get it stable or stay within power limits.

 

[OlaGB]

Do you guys OC your I9-13900K? Is it worth to do it?

Yes.
I used Asus Ai , just finetuned the cooling estimation slightly, and got a 7% increase in single core results.
Also got a nice boost in a fps benchmark for iRacing (cpu test only).

I do have a 420mm aio cooler though.

 

[wajdi]

Thanks. I really don’t have that much time to O

Yes.
I used Asus Ai , just finetuned the cooling estimation slightly, and got a 7% increase in single core results.
Also got a nice boost in a fps benchmark for iRacing (cpu test only).

I do have a 420mm aio cooler though.

Well tonight I did a small /safe OC using the Intel XTU utility. I don’t have time to do it via BIOS… to much time consuming for me to do stress tests .

 

[Spinelli]

Do you guys OC your I9-13900K? Is it worth to do it?

I have a 12900KS, not a 13900K/KS. I'd only overclock because I always do regardless of CPU, RAM, and GPU. I like the testing, benchmarking, etc. If you don't care for that stuff then I'd say no. With a 13900K, you'll prob be able to just OC to 5.6-5.7 GHz. They don't have much headroom.

I'd also disable e-cores to not only give more cache but to lower temps to potentially enable higher OC but, honestly, it's not really going to make a difference for the most part.

If you OC 13900K and OC / fully tune RAM ("fully" as in primary, secondary, tertiary timings, not just primary) then they can both combine to make good improvement otherwise I wouldn't worry much about OC'ing the CPU for the vast majority of users.