• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel claims Rocket Lake has faster storage performance than AMD Zen3

Associate
Joined
27 Apr 2007
Posts
963
Maybe we’ll start seeing reviews focussing on USB 2.0 performance also?
I can see it becoming popular with the hipsters along with their vinyls (sic) and cassette tapes.
Maybe also extended graphs of PS2 latency when mousing!
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,380
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Associate
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
1,684
I have known people to buy new drives to get a 10% percieved speed increase

some people just have money to burn
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,464
"Results may vary" they do with storage, with a 10% margin run it again and you may get a different result, this is desperate Intel.

Also as mentioned this test was done with the nvme drive attached to the pcie slot the gpu would go in using a riser cable instead of attaching it to the m2 a lot it should be in - that's to ensure it got cpu lanes and not chipset lanes for this "benchmark" completely meaningless for real world usage
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,380
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Also as mentioned this test was done with the nvme drive attached to the pcie slot the gpu would go in using a riser cable instead of attaching it to the m2 a lot it should be in - that's to ensure it got cpu lanes and not chipset lanes for this "benchmark" completely meaningless for real world usage

Oh for crying out loud Intel... lol
 

G J

G J

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2008
Posts
1,393
This means nothing to me as I still use a HDD as a primary drive. :p

Well it seems this is not a typical usage scenario, its like clocking an Intel chip with LN2 and then claiming best cpu ever.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2003
Posts
4,187
Location
Stourport-On-Severn
Also as mentioned this test was done with the nvme drive attached to the pcie slot the gpu would go in using a riser cable instead of attaching it to the m2 a lot it should be in - that's to ensure it got cpu lanes and not chipset lanes for this "benchmark" completely meaningless for real world usage

Yes, which in itself begs the question why do that ? Could it be that M2 slots on the Intel Mobo used are chipset only ?
 
Associate
Joined
27 Apr 2007
Posts
963
Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,257
Also as mentioned this test was done with the nvme drive attached to the pcie slot the gpu would go in using a riser cable instead of attaching it to the m2 a lot it should be in - that's to ensure it got cpu lanes and not chipset lanes for this "benchmark" completely meaningless for real world usage

How did they do this and somehow connect a 3090 gfx card? Did they plug it into the wrong slot?
 
Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,257
Although it isn't required, it is listed as used in their test

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: Processor: AMD Ryzen™ 9 5950X processor PL1=105W TDP, 16C32T, Motherboard: ASUS X570 ROG Crosshair VIII Hero, Bios Version: 3202, Memory: 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-3200, Storage OS Drive: 512GB Intel SSD 760p, Storage Test Drive: 1TB Gen 4 Samsung 980 Pro, Storage Driver: Microsoft Inbox, Display Resolution: 1920x1080, OS: Microsoft Windows 10 20H2 - 19042.746, Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Founders Edition, Graphics Driver: 461.09

The test makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Apr 2007
Posts
963
ah yes, intel, to cram 10% more out of your NVME by slotting it in the wrong place and gimping your GFX card while you're at it.
Utter ********
:)
The majority of people don't care about PCIe 4.0 either way as they don't own a PCIe 4.0 device or would benefit significantly from owning one.
But bigger numbers hey!
Roll on PCIe 5.0.
Let the madness continue. :)
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2020
Posts
2,034
Location
South Wales
So give up 50% of my 5950X cores to gain 10% more storage speed with Intel, that's a tough one :D

And if the rumored prices are right for rocket lake Intel can shove those chips where the sun doesn't shine. Way overpriced for just 8 cores.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
1,684
So give up 50% of my 5950X cores to gain 10% more storage speed with Intel, that's a tough one :D

And if the rumored prices are right for rocket lake Intel can shove those chips where the sun doesn't shine. Way overpriced for just 8 cores.

but your not the market 99.9% of people with a 5950x will not be changing it for 3-5 years

so why do you worry the people who need to are ones looking for an upgrade



or people with big heads and little .... worrying about waggling contests
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,410
Location
United Kingdom
Someone think of a scenario where 11% more "storage performance" in whatever interpretation is the deciding factor.

Very odd thing to broadcast as a victory.
Desperate times. ;)

So give up 50% of my 5950X cores to gain 10% more storage speed with Intel, that's a tough one :D

And if the rumored prices are right for rocket lake Intel can shove those chips where the sun doesn't shine. Way overpriced for just 8 cores.
I always appreciate a Raiden85 post. :)
 
Associate
Joined
2 Feb 2021
Posts
206
Hey hey, don’t down play disk benchmark performance now, for those of us with sizeable... adult media collection, that 10% performances could mean the world of difference:D
 
Back
Top Bottom