Intel's Core i7-11700K has already been reduced, 10th-gen parts now even cheaper

Irata

Posts: 1,361   +2,171
Now, 8 cores 16 threads should be enough CPU power for some time.

But, since current games simply suck using IO, even HDD is quite enough for games. As we have seen, many new console games do load and (use textures "on fly") Very Fast. DirectStorage is similar solution coming for PC.

If DirectStorage really does what it promises, we may talk very big advantage. It may well require NVMe x4 connection from CPU. Difference between 10700K and 3700X on current games seem to be around 8%. With DirectStorage we may well speak more like 80% improvement. Even that number is very low to be honest, if technology is properly implemented.

Remember also, Intel usually tends to support new products much better than old ones. I would not be surprised at all if Intel will limit DirectStorage support for Rocket lake and newer. 8% difference on current old games worth enough to take risk? Easy answer: no.
Oh, I don‘t buy Intel unless I can only get what I need from them.

In terms of extra IO I am happy with the additional 4x lanes and USB ports from the CPU my Ryzen has, but I wouldn‘t upgrade from B450 to a 500 series chipset when I upgrade my CPU later on. Curious what direct storage will bring.

Just saying that the 10700k isn‘t garbage and with current EOL prices not a bad deal.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,075   +664
Oh, I don‘t buy Intel unless I can only get what I need from them.

In terms of extra IO I am happy with the additional 4x lanes and USB ports from the CPU my Ryzen has, but I wouldn‘t upgrade from B450 to a 500 series chipset when I upgrade my CPU later on. Curious what direct storage will bring.

Just saying that the 10700k isn‘t garbage and with current EOL prices not a bad deal.
Well. If DirectStorage brings what it promises and (based on Microsoft's blog) 10700K won't support it and adding another things too, it's not hard to say 10700K is hugely overpriced and garbage.

Things would be different without Rocket Lake and ahere is always this famous IF. But still.
 

Strawman

Posts: 332   +207
Well. If DirectStorage brings what it promises and (based on Microsoft's blog) 10700K won't support it and adding another things too, it's not hard to say 10700K is hugely overpriced and garbage.

Things would be different without Rocket Lake and ahere is always this famous IF. But still.
What stops you from using bifurication and run the card on pcie x8 then? The difference in performance between gen 3 pcie 8 and GEN 4 x16 is minimal with a 3090, we are talking about a few percent and that mostly in 1080p resolution. With a 3070 its probably non existent.

So there you go, problem solved, you can connect the nvme directly to the CPU. Problem solved?
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,075   +664
ht stops you from using bifurication and run the card on pcie x8 then? The difference in performance between gen 3 pcie 8 and GEN 4 x16 is minimal with a 3090, we are talking about a few percent and that mostly in 1080p resolution. With a 3070 its probably non existent.

So there you go, problem solved, you can connect the nvme directly to the CPU. Problem solved?
No?

When talking about DirectStorage, it's future. It will cause more stress for PCIe bus connected to video card (no idea how much but it will create more). Problems:

- x8 may be bottleneck for future video cards using DirectStorage
- Most motherboards don't have x8/x8 that also requires dual PCIe x16 slots
- Those motherboards that do have, require PCIe-NVMe adapter for NVMe drive or very expensive PCIe SSD
- Second PCIe x8 slot is usually farther away from CPU than CPU attached NVMe slot, that also means it's slower

Based on those reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if video card needs to be put in x16 slot.
 

Strawman

Posts: 332   +207
No?

When talking about DirectStorage, it's future. It will cause more stress for PCIe bus connected to video card (no idea how much but it will create more). Problems:

- x8 may be bottleneck for future video cards using DirectStorage
- Most motherboards don't have x8/x8 that also requires dual PCIe x16 slots
- Those motherboards that do have, require PCIe-NVMe adapter for NVMe drive or very expensive PCIe SSD
- Second PCIe x8 slot is usually farther away from CPU than CPU attached NVMe slot, that also means it's slower

Based on those reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if video card needs to be put in x16 slot.
Im actually testing it right now with a 3090 in 5120 *1440 resolution. I dont notice any difference but after benching is done ill compare the numbers.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,361   +2,171
Im actually testing it right now with a 3090 in 5120 *1440 resolution. I dont notice any difference but after benching is done ill compare the numbers.
Are there Mainboards for 10th gen core that allow for the set-up you suggested, I.e. an nVme slot that uses CPU PCIe lanes when you only use x8 for the GPU ?

I think HardReset also makes a good point saying that DirectStorage means that data is directly transferred to the GPU via the PCIe slot, so that should use more bandwidth than just the data that is already being transferred.

The main point is also why make things complicated while being potentially less performant and more expensive when there are solutions that work out of the box ?
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,075   +664
Im actually testing it right now with a 3090 in 5120 *1440 resolution. I dont notice any difference but after benching is done ill compare the numbers.
I appreciate your testing, but:

- You cannot test with DirectStorage
- You cannot test with future games that support DirectStorage

Things I say about DirectStorage is mostly speculation (with some very broad facts told us by Microsoft). However that also makes all existing testing useless.
Are there Mainboards for 10th gen core that allow for the set-up you suggested, I.e. an nVme slot that uses CPU PCIe lanes when you only use x8 for the GPU ?
Most high end boards allow setting PCIe x16 slots (assuming there is at least two of them) either x16 or x8/x8 (perhaps even x8/x4/x4 but that's irrelevant). I see no problem there.

Still, no DirectStorage testing is publicly possible IMO.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,839   +2,151
Staff member
I think HardReset also makes a good point saying that DirectStorage means that data is directly transferred to the GPU via the PCIe slot, so that should use more bandwidth than just the data that is already being transferred.
I think you might be confusing Microsoft's DirectStorage with Nvidia's RTX IO - they share related aspects but ultimately they're two different things. DirectStorage is an API that essentially alters the currently very linear and restrictive manner in which a GPU can request read/writes to/from storage; DS will allow these to be handled in parallel batches, which will lessen the load on the CPU and take advantage of the fact that NVMe drives can allow multiple IO requests to be queued. This, in turn, further reduces the CPU overhead, because the API is no longer having to manage thousands of individual requests - bundle them up, send them off, and let the drive manage it.

RTX IO is a system that allows data transfers between the GPU's local memory and the storage drive to bypass being copied to system memory first. The benefits of this more obvious: smaller footprint in the system DRAM for game assets and reduced CPU overhead managing the memory transactions. To manage all of this, Nvidia plans to use the DirectStorage API, as well as their own for non-Direct3D applications.