EightyDuce

Yeah I'm definitely feeling mixed on this. On one hand you're getting 4080 level raster performance and more RAM for $200 less. On the other hand, at $1000 MSRP is in the territory where you seriously consider paying $200 more for much better RT performance and DLSS2/3. Not going to lie, I was cash in hand ready to buy tomorrow, now, not so much. Will wait for DCS VR performance numbers.

It's not uncommon for UPS/FedEx to hand off to USPS for the "last mile delivery".

VideoCardz accuracy of reporting is 50:50 on the best of days. Patiently waiting a reputable source.

https://videocardz.com/newz/first-amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-7900-xt-3dmark-timespy-firestrikes-scores-are-in Given the source (they're wrong about as often as they are right) coupled with lack of info on setup (ie. drivers), would definitely take it with a healthy dose of skepticism, but interested to see how this shapes up. Patiently awaiting Dec 12 reviews.

Got some potentially bad news for you on the 128 Gb front if you're looking at AM5. At least for now. https://youtu.be/P58VqVvDjxo

I look forward to your continued comprehensive counter-shill culture analysis of CPU and memory tech that everyone else seems to be missing. You'll be great.

That's a nice wall of text, but at the end of the day they took the same hardware (MB and RAM) and compared 5600X VS. 5800X3D and 5800X3D came out 15-25% faster. You should develop and present your comprehensive testing method since they're apparently doing it wrong, I be curious to see your results instead of a bunch of copy/paste text.

Incorrect. 5600x to 5800X3D is on avg 15-25% gain in performance, a fairly significant increase. Lower latency (CL14) dual rank ram will get you another couple percent at best, not exactly a deal breaker. Unless you have absolute trash RAM, there will be a performance increase. Now, will it be noticeable? It will depend on the scenario. VR sees the biggest net gain, 2D does as well but may not be as noticeable.

Interesting, looks like their example was a 6600Mhz CL34 (0T56KXS820A seen on F5-6600J3440G16GA2-TZ5RK) which by speed and latency would be more in line with A-die. So either they are wrong (possibly, but unlikely if they pulled the heat-spreader off and looked at the ICs) and this is M-die (still more than fine for AM5 purpose) or possibly these are rejected IC's that couldn't pass validation at higher speed and were binned down to a 6000Mhz speed CL34 kit. I don't suppose you have access to an DDR5 system where you could pop these puppies in and run Thaiphoon Burner to id the IC codes? It would be sweet to score a guarantee A-die kit at M-die prices. I'm just a little worried that this may be a bit of mis-identification or if it is A-die, its a binning reject. Or best case scenario, they didn't have M-die IC's on hand and used A-die...which would be a solid win.

It should be solid ram for AM5 at the current state of things, you can probably get it down form CL34 to CL28 at 1.45. That being said, where did you find the info on part/code numbers indicating the type of chips used? Reason I ask is that 6000 CL34 would almost be a waste of A-die as M-die should easily be able to hit those same speeds and latency, thus my skepticism on it being A-die and rather being M-die. At the end of the day, as far as AM5 is concerned makes no difference as you have little to no overclocking headroom beyond 6200-6400 at this time.

There's an 18 page thread on the topic of 5800X3D as it pertains to VR.

Haha I still have a set of those speakers from probably 15 years ago. Down to just 3 speakers (Left Center Right) + sub. The backlight on the controller no longer backlights bu otherwise they still sound great. Probably moving to just two desk speakers plus a DAC at some point... But for now...

Only do a "deep clean" once a year, take it outside and blow it out with a compressor or canned air. Wipe down the large surfaces a small cloth damped with 50:50 IPA/water. Biggest help in keeping things clean is a good case with filters on all the intakes and keep the case under positive pressure, so that the air coming in, goes through the areas you want ir to - ie. intake filters. My Torrent runs a custom loop with a 280 and a 420 radiator, so thats 5x140mm intake fans and 1 exhaust (2 if you count the PSU).

Away from the floor....typically, on the desk.

Do you have another PSU on hand test? From limited info provided, it could be a PSU issue. What are your temps like?

There seems to be some misconceptions about memory on this thread that's been repeated in other threads. Samsung bdie is not some magic sauce. Samsung B die and Micron Rev E at same speed same latency will have same performance (within margin of error). The beauty of Bdie is its overclocking headroom. For example I wa able to take my 3200 CL12 bdie to 4000 (15-16-16-35). The use case for Bdie is that you can take inexpensive kit of Bdie, overclock it to 3600 then take the rest of that bdie headroom and focus it on latency. If you're not overclocking, B die is a waste of money but cause you can get the same results with other ram (if they can hit same timings/speed) as you can with Bdie and overclocking. Honestly, Bdie is arguable wasted on a ryzen system unless you do manual tuning and not just throwing on XMP. This will be affected by board topology and silicon lottery on the memory controller. You can achieve the same results with a native 3600 CL14 kit. X3D is a bit of a wildcard is that it's v-cash allows it to basically bypass memory bottleneck. So that ram isn't as cruicial as it is with a non 3D chip because vcash essentially trumps it. That being said, I wouldn't just run potato Ram just because you have an X3D.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a big price drop, especially not any time soon. Considering where they priced the 12Gb before they axed it, I wouldn't expect them to get anywhere near that price or it makes them look worse than they currently are. It should have been a $900-1000 at the most, but they got greedy (plus Lovelace die is expensive to produce). Whether they will ever drop it down to that price, that's hard to tell but very unlikely, at least for the first year. Right now considering what you can get a 3090ti for, at least in the US, a 4080 is a really bad buy. If they 7900XTX performs as expected, then the 4080 would really be a hard sell, unless you really need the RT performance and DLSS 3...both irrelevant in DCS. As for power demands, honestly, from looking at the reviews it really doesn't seem bad at all and much lower than originally speculated. Lovelace seems to be fairly efficient at normal use conditions.

Sadly Alienware have notorisly bad case design/management with poor cooling. That being said, 70-75F...isnt terrible, your computer won't melt. What's your ambient temp? As far as updates go, it's not that updates degrade performance (well, sometimes there are bugs that do), but they add new visuals, complex models, AI, etc. - those things all take need to be processed. If hardware stays the same and game becomes more complex and demanding, over time performance will suffer if settings remain the same.

10 years of overhyped disappointment?That's a bit dramatic. Zen has hardly been a disappointment. RDNA has hardly been a disappointment. Hawaii (290/290X), hardly a disappointment. People want competition so that they don't have to sell their kidney for a trash product. Competition breeds innovation and combats price gouging by a monopoly. Saying people want competition from AMD only so that they can buy an Nvidia card at a lower price is a bit disingenuous. People want competition so that they can get the best value for their hard-earned money. I'd wager that if Burger King launched a graphics card that beat or matched AMD/Nvidia offerings at a cheaper price, people would line up to have it their way.... As far as drivers, I do agree Nvidia has had overall good drivers. As you mentioned, their driver division is huge. However, AMD drivers have hardly been a dumpster fire they are being perpetuated to be, at least in recent years. It appears that they can't shake the stigma of years passed that gets parroted as still being a thing. Again I can only speak from personal experience for the Hawaii and RDNA2 generations. Out of curiosity, what is your metric for measuring success or failure of AMD?

Couple of suggestions. Instead of 5600, if you can stretch to a 5800X3D ($329) it will absolutely crush 5600 frametimes, especially in VR. As far as the GPU, I was playing on a 1080ti prior to breaking down my PC for an upgrade and with a HP Reverb G2 the VR experience was subpar at best. I had to turn most settings down to medium or lower (especially shadows) and it was still struggling to maintain 45fps for reprojection. Not sure what the resolution of the Quest 2 is but you may be able to get away with it, but in all honesty, I don't see it being enjoyable. Sadly, VR in this game is a fairly costly venture if you want 45+ fps and good visuals (especially in 2.8 update). I would seriously consider a GPU upgrade as well for VR and that will likely double your spending. One thing to consider is previous gen cards and used market. If you play multi-player you should seriously consider 64Gb of RAM. If you re on a tight budget or only play single player, 32 should be ok(ish).

Interesting. From everything I've read (I don't have access to Zen 3 to test) 3600 CL16 seems to be the sweet spot.

One suggestion I would make is go for 3600 CL18 or CL16 DDR4 instead of 3200 so that you run 1:1 FCLK. Out of curiosity, why 128 GB vs 64? Especially with a 5800X3D. Also I would strongly consider dumping X570 for a B550 and save some money, unless 570 has some feature you absolutely need. Most decent B550s will have good enough VRMs to give the 5800x3d all the gas it needs. At that point just focus on having good I/O on the back and m.2 slots.

While I agree with some (very few) of his points, such as the presentation being a bit cringe and the constant nods to "8k" (the only commonplace 8k I can think of is VR with 2x4k displays) ...by and large he makes some off the wall leaps and assumptions while mixing arguments. People that have $1000 to spend on 7900XTX have enough money to buy 4090 to get the best. What? I'm willing to spend upto $1000 and get the best card for that budget. I'm no where near willing to pay $1600 (if you're lucky to get msrp, 2000 in his area by his own admission) for a 4090. I'm not looking for the best, I'm looking for the best I can get for my $1000 budget; so are others. Cost of 7900XTX being similar to that of 6900 XT at launch for small gains.... Per AMDs slides, performance increase is anywhere between 50-70%. That is not an insignificant amount. Then compares to Nvidia and says performance isn't as good. We'll no <profanity> sherlock, the only Nvidia card we have to compare to is 4090 and we already established that it's not the target. He seems to be mixing his own arguments. He then craps on power use saying that it doesn't matter and they should go for full send. While that's true for some, it's not for others. Electricity is expensive, you have to be able to cool it, and most of all, lastly just because it uses XXX amount of watts, doesn't mean you're getting a linear performance increase with wattage. Those interested in this should watch the video by Derbauer where to pumped nearly 1000 watts into the 4090 for negligible gain. He then states that he spoke to some AIBs and they said they were only able to get about 3% more out of their cards. That seems very suspect, maybe on a 2x8pin version but some like Asus are launching 3x8pin models... That wouldn't make any sense at all to add 150w of headroom for 3% performance. Either he's blowing smoke or he is confused. He then continues to crap on FSR. I don't know about you, but given the chance I will use FSR just as I use DLSS now, there's little to no reason not to (unless unavailable). Again, his argument seems a bit over the top. That's not to say that straight up raster performance doesn't matter, it absolutely does and I do agree that they should include FSR/DLSS numbers as well as raw. He keeps parroting that 7900XTX is a fail then says it will likely be 10% faster than a 4080 which has an MSRP of $1200...I don't know about his math, but by my math 10% more performance for 17% less money doesn't strike me as a fail. Also keeps hammering that AMD isn't showing any actual numbers but then goes to say that 7900XTX is a bad value at $1000. Based on what? Anyway, I'm sure he said something else but after slugging through half the video I couldn't give it any more of my time due to exhaustion of doing mental gymstastics trying to follow his disjointed arguments based on pure speculation. The whole video just came across like a clown-fest to try and get clicks/views. I guess our questions will be answered in December. Can't wait P.S. Sorry for any and all bad grammar, typing on my phone.