AMD becomes the first to reach 5GHz with FX-9590 processor

[EEatGDL]

Oh God, there's no use. You're simply too stubborn [I'm not calling fanboy because then I'm the childish] to read, comprehend, and incorporate a simply technicality. You didn't even follow the link of the Intel chipsets, do you?

 

[dividebyzero]

It does not matter if it was not done directly by AMD

Well yes it does. Why? Because if it was AMD specification then that would mean that the CPU had a PCI-E 3.0 controller.
Furthermore, what I wrote was:

How much real difference is there between the 800 and 900 series chipsets? and how long as the 990FX been AMD's flagship? No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.

...and without a built in PCI-E 3.0 controller, servers, HPC, and workstation aren't certified for PCI-E 3.0...WHICH MEANS NO PCI-E 3.0 for C32 and G34 socket systems.

Wow. I'd think that someone who is supposedly a data center manager would know at least the basics of validation and certification.

Oh God, there's no use. You're simply too stubborn [I'm not calling fanboy because then I'm the childish] to read, comprehend, and incorporate a simply technicality. You didn't even follow the link of the Intel chipsets, do you?

He's not a fanboy. If he was then it would a reverse psychology deal where an Intel of Nvidia diehard would post nonsense under the pretext of being an AMD enthusiast. What we're dealing with here is a common garden variety

 

[GhostRyder]

IT does not matter if its a mod to the board, I knew that from the beginning. I have known about this board for a very long time and was hoping to see a crosshair version of it.

Who cares if its a mod, its still a AM3+ board, with the 990FX chip set, that has PCI-E 3.0. Do you deny that this is whats on the board. Even if you count it as a technicality, it still exists, just because you dont want to count it does not change the fact It Exists.

No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop

Front and center.

Still not going to stoop to insulting you, as you clearly have to keep doing to me.

 

[EEatGDL]

Please tell us for background purposes: have you ever taken a course about computer architecture? Summarizing, what topics did you cover? Or at least: what makes you so sure about what you're affirming besides reading some "cool features" in a mobo? I'm not insulting you, really, just so all we know what's backing your statement other than "what you think", "what you believe it is", "what you understand by the term..."

Because I can handle you a contact at Intel who you can ask everything about the definition of chipset and mostly anything about it, if you want [I'm serious, I have three people there who you can ask and with a high enough internal level/rank to be trustworthy about this confusing point to you].

 

[Jad Chaar]

Why are we arguing about PCIe 3? There is basically no difference between PCIe 3 and 2 in gaming. It doesnt whether you have PCIe 3 or PCIe 2 unless you are running 3-4 cards at the same time.

 

[dividebyzero]

Why are we arguing about PCIe 3? There is basically no difference between PCIe 3 and 2 in gaming. It doesnt whether you have PCIe 3 or PCIe 2 unless you are running 3-4 cards at the same time.

To summarize:
Your pal called me out for supposedly not knowing what constitutes a chipset when I gave an opinion on the stagnation of AMDs chipset business with regard to the professional sector in particular, and a lack of feature set gains in AMD's chipsets in general.
He was wrong in his assumption simply because he does not understand the distinction between "chipset" and "motherboard". People with more knowledge than he at this time possesses are attempting to clarify that distinction for him.
Simple.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Oh ok (y). Keep it up I guess.

 

[GhostRyder]

Yeah keep insulting me, its clear your mad right now and that's all you can do.

Oh I dont have to prove my knowledge to anyone, but you keep spouting this information like you are the king of this. There is a desktop motherboard, AM3+, 990FX chipset, that contains support for PCI-E 3.0. That's a desktop that can support PCI-E 3.0 that's AMD, does not matter if its a "Technicality", it still is there and exists.

You can try and change your argument all you want to try and make yourself sound right. You said "not have PCI-E 3.0 may not be a big deal in a desktop", I just showed you that you can.
Its a rather simple concept...

 

[Darth Shiv]

Seriously how can a chip have better multi-threaded performance when they suffer at single-threaded performance. Forgive me but this sounds to be contradictory statements. Not to mention the fact that if true, AMD would be on top of the benchmark test.

If they have more cores is one way (at some set price point).

 

[Darth Shiv]

Oh I dont have to prove my knowledge to anyone, but you keep spouting this information like you are the king of this. There is a desktop motherboard, AM3+, 990FX chipset, that contains support for PCI-E 3.0. That's a desktop that can support PCI-E 3.0 that's AMD, does not matter if its a "Technicality", it still is there and exists.

You can try and change your argument all you want to try and make yourself sound right. You said "not have PCI-E 3.0 may not be a big deal in a desktop", I just showed you that you can.
Its a rather simple concept...

It has a caveat that the CPU needs to support PCIe 3.0 as well for the system to be able to actually do PCIe 3.0. So while the board supports it, currently it will never be able to enable PCIe 3.0 to my knowledge?

 

[dividebyzero]

It has a caveat that the CPU needs to support PCIe 3.0 as well for the system to be able to actually do PCIe 3.0. So while the board supports it, currently it will never be able to enable PCIe 3.0 to my knowledge?

Correct.
My motherboard also supports PCI-E 3.0 (P8Z77-V), but my CPU does not (2600K), consequently the PCI-E 3.0 specification goes unused (as any diagnostic like GPU-Z will attest).

 

[GhostRyder]

It has a caveat that the CPU needs to support PCIe 3.0 as well for the system to be able to actually do PCIe 3.0. So while the board supports it, currently it will never be able to enable PCIe 3.0 to my knowledge?

My point was you can build an AMD desktop with a 990FX chipset that has it that supports this motherboard. Whether or not there is a performance increase or not is not the debate, I was just pointing out something, and hes trying to make it a different argument and rule the board a technicality to valid the argument he made earlier.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Oh and I read the fine print, but clearly its still a 990FX chip set, does not matter what extras are added.

The chipset 990FX does not support it. The Asus board has an additional chip which does support it. That is the technicality of the wording which they are saying you are incorrect in.

In other words you cannot put a 990FX on a board and have PCIe 3.0 by connecting to the 990FX. You need to put an additional component on and connect to that.

 

[GhostRyder]

The chipset 990FX does not support it. The Asus board has an additional chip which does support it. That is the technicality of the wording which they are saying you are incorrect in.

In other words you cannot put a 990FX on a board and have PCIe 3.0 by connecting to the 990FX. You need to put an additional component on and connect to that.

Ive read and I know, I never said that every board of the 990FX has 3.0 support, just this one. Which means there is a board that has it, so you can build a desktop with it. Its Asus third party support, but its still an AMD board no matter how you want to look at it running a 990FX chipset with an extra peripheral.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Why are we arguing about PCIe 3? There is basically no difference between PCIe 3 and 2 in gaming. It doesnt whether you have PCIe 3 or PCIe 2 unless you are running 3-4 cards at the same time.

Actually that is not true. On desktop systems, utilising > 1 PCIe x16 slot on LGA 1055, 1050 and 1056 drops the native chipset PCIe x16 slots to x8 each. So PCIe 2.0 x8 actually bottlenecks graphics cards provably at high resolutions (1080p+) and probably provably in lesser resolutions but to lesser extents.

So if you instead had PCIe 3.0 with 2 slots running at x8, they are both effectively PCIe 2.0 x16 slots in terms of individual bandwidth. *That* is why PCIe 3.0 matters.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Ive read and I know, I never said that every board of the 990FX has 3.0 support, just this one. Which means there is a board that has it, so you can build a desktop with it. Its Asus third party support, but its still an AMD board no matter how you want to look at it running a 990FX chipset with an extra peripheral.

Well whatever way you look at it, it would be interesting to see what the real PCIe 3.0 bandwidth is as that is provided by a 3rd party chipset. It could be upstream bandwidth limited then PCIe 3.0 support is just a marketing ploy. Add to that that you cannot actually activate PCIe 3.0 on the board because no CPU exists that will allow it to, it's a bit of a mute point.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well whatever way you look at it, it would be interesting to see what the real PCIe 3.0 bandwidth is as that is provided by a 3rd party chipset. It could be upstream bandwidth limited then PCIe 3.0 support is just a marketing ploy. Add to that that you cannot actually activate PCIe 3.0 on the board because no CPU exists that will allow it to, it's a bit of a mute point.

Maybe, but my point was and still is that it exists, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jad Chaar]

 

[Jad Chaar]

Actually that is not true. On desktop systems, utilising > 1 PCIe x16 slot on LGA 1055, 1050 and 1056 drops the native chipset PCIe x16 slots to x8 each. So PCIe 2.0 x8 actually bottlenecks graphics cards provably at high resolutions (1080p+) and probably provably in lesser resolutions but to lesser extents.

So if you instead had PCIe 3.0 with 2 slots running at x8, they are both effectively PCIe 2.0 x16 slots in terms of individual bandwidth. *That* is why PCIe 3.0 matters.

Oh wow, really? Interesting.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Maybe, but my point was and still is that it exists, nothing more, nothing less.

This whole ordeal has been because you took DBZ's comment out of context. The bickering continues because you won't let him establish the correct context. The context being chipset, of which was interpreted as motherboard. You keep insisting that DBZ come forward and confess, when there is nothing for him to confess.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Oh wow, really? Interesting.

Yes I've been bitten by this one on my current mobo. It can boost SATA 3 or boost USB 3.0 or run PCIe 2.0 slot 1 at x16 or run 2x PCIe 2.0 x8 slots but what I want is SATA 3 boosted PLUS USB 3.0 boosted PLUS 2x PCIe 2.0 x16 slots!

 

[GhostRyder]

This whole ordeal has been because you took DBZ's comment out of context. The bickering continues because you won't let him establish the correct context. The context being chipset, of which was interpreted as motherboard. You keep insisting that DBZ come forward and confess, when there is nothing for him to confess.

I didn't take it out of context, he said the not having it on the desktop was not a big deal, all I said was there was a motherboard, that you can build into a desktop, that has it.

The ones who made it into a chip set only discussion was you three. I just stated there was a motherboard, that was AM3+, that was also the 990FX chipset, that contained PCI-E 3.0 support.

 

[St1ckM4n]

Oh, you guys. :3


Regarding the chipset debate:
DBZ has never denied the existence of a mobo that includes a 990FX chipset and also PCIe3.0 features, AFAIK. However, his initial statement was about chipset only, not motherboards. It's nice that GhostRyder found such a motherboard, but you can't call out DBZ as a liar.


Regarding the AMD v INTEL debate:

1. Person A quotes numerous benchmarks, including TS, and gaming to show that Intel i7 beats AMD 8-core.
2. Person B responds with pure synthetic benchmarks (that you'll never see in real-life) of CPU and passmark showing the AMD slightly behind, while a fair bit ahead in terms of $/perf.
3. ???
4. Profit.

 

[EEatGDL]

Ive read and I know, I never said that every board of the 990FX has 3.0 support, just this one. Which means there is a board that has it, so you can build a desktop with it. Its Asus third party support, but its still an AMD board no matter how you want to look at it running a 990FX chipset with an extra peripheral.

Yes, you did say every 990FX board has 3.0 support, it goes implied by the affirmation that the chipset supports it mentioning a single board. DBZ said the 990FX chipset didn't have PCIe 3.0 support, you said yes mentioning a particular mobo [confusing with chipset], DBZ clarified the point and you are stubborn with the mobo-chipset confusion. No one but you here are changing argument and feeling attacked, we're just making a laugh about what we found hillarious -nothing personal- and I mean it, if you want me you can ask someone at Intel first hand about the chipset [definition, what it implies, etc.] by giving you his mail (mail@intel.com of course).

I'm not mad at you, just exasperated because you haven't stopped for a while, read with calm, analyze the information you're given and then answer back, you're following your line of being blind and hiding in a shell from our "attacks".

 

[GhostRyder]

Yes, you did say every 990FX board has 3.0 support, it goes implied by the affirmation that the chipset supports it mentioning a single board. DBZ said the 990FX chipset didn't have PCIe 3.0 support, you said yes mentioning a particular mobo [confusing with chipset], DBZ clarified the point and you are stubborn with the mobo-chipset confusion. No one but you here are changing argument and feeling attacked, we're just making a laugh about what we found hillarious -nothing personal- and I mean it, if you want me you can ask someone at Intel first hand about the chipset [definition, what it implies, etc.] by giving you his mail (mail@intel.com of course).

I'm not mad at you, just exasperated because you haven't stopped for a while, read with calm, analyze the information you're given and then answer back, you're following your line of being blind and hiding in a shell from our "attacks".

I just went through and read every post, I never once stated anywhere that the 990FX chipset on every board supported PCI-E 3.0. I double checked that because no where did I say or mean that. I never changed my argument since the beginning, this is the farthest back quote where I said more than wrong and posted a link:

"Umm no, your wrong, its still a AMD 990FX board that supports PCI-E 3.0 which you said there was none, you just forgot there was one out now. End of discussion..."

I'm not mad at you, just exasperated because you haven't stopped for a while, read with calm, analyze the information you're given and then answer back, you're following your line of being blind and hiding in a shell from our "attacks".

Oh ok, then why has he posted an insult in more than half his responses to me yet I have not said one insult other than saying he is wrong.

I never once confused the chipset to the board or claimed it was not an add, I simply claimed there was a board for a desktop that supports it from the very beginning.

 

[St1ckM4n]

I never once confused the chipset to the board or claimed it was not an add, I simply claimed there was a board for a desktop that supports it from the very beginning.

So why not mention this, and why not stop and say "okay, so we're both correct" when DBZ clarified his point about chipset only multiple times?