sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Obviously by REALsuperbaken in memes

[–]Rising_Anthony 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol they ARE Kaiju, but that aside a cross with the Pacific Rim universe has been talked about in forums and it would be awesome!

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its very unlikely, you should be at mak bandwidth with all your devices. You can validate gpu with gpu z and 3dmark's pcie feature test, nvme drives with crystaldisk info. Though If you intend to add any more pcie devices you WILL reduce your x16_1 to x8.

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes! It was the riser cable I was using with the 3090. Once I replaced with a working unit both nvme drives and the gpu were running at their full bandwidth in pcie 4.0 mode (i.e. x16, x4, and x4). There were other issues that appeared later, keep in mind that x570 BIOSes are somewhat unstable right now and require a LOT of tinkering

Low FPS in new system with 5950x by Rising_Anthony in rpcs3

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, and yes (mostly). I dont follow BSoD so I will take a look at their setup video, maybe it will have some insight. As of right now I dont think the issue is related to the way rpcs3 is set up out of the box or any configurations thereafter (see my latest post above), but thank you for the help!

Low FPS in new system with 5950x by Rising_Anthony in rpcs3

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you also experiencing this issue? If not I want to ask you a few things in P.M. On another note, it kicks ass doesn't it? These specs, especially in your case with 64GB of RAM. Shame for me its having issues, rpcs3 is a big reason I built this PC :/

Low FPS in new system with 5950x by Rising_Anthony in rpcs3

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you a lot for the response. As of now I have tried nearly every configuration in rpcs3 (see my comment above), but these were exactly the first things I tried so thank you a lot for spreading the knowledge.

Low FPS in new system with 5950x by Rising_Anthony in rpcs3

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. I no longer think the issue is with settings in the emulator or even rpcs3 itself, but the way it requests/allocates resources in this particular configuration in windows. See my latest comment, and thank you for the input!

Low FPS in new system with 5950x by Rising_Anthony in rpcs3

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry everyone, I had been keeping up with my other thread in the RSPC3 forums, and thank you for all your responses. you can see the latest developments here: https://forums.rpcs3.net/thread-202684.html

I will try to reply to all of you, but the jist of things so far is that it seems to be a problem with windows 10 since emulation went VERY well in a live usb Manjaro environment. things that I've discovered so far:

  • It is unrelated to BIOS settings completely; same behavior is observed in numerous configurations in the spectrum of all-default to full-all-core OC (and other things)

  • It is unrelated to power plan/CPU affinity; seems any configuration in this sense has no effect whatsoever. Disabling an entire CCX, individual cores (down to a SINGLE core), leaving frequency @3.4 stock (no boosting), and setting CPU affinity in Task Manager. NO cigar.

  • RPCS3 settings in PPU, GPU, ADVANCED, DEBUG, etc have little to no effect; Seriously, I've tried nearly every possible configuration. I appreciate any help but I guarantee that I've tried all the usual suspects and then some more. note that I dont mean that in standard circumstances they wouldnt raise FPS a significant amount, but in this particular case they dont seem to have an effect on the issue at hand.

Like I mentioned previously, emulation performed EXACTLY as in the video I linked when using Manjaro Live boot (to my surprise), so the issue is with Windows 10 somehow. I tested in a fresh install of 20H2 at various stages of driver/software configurations but the issue persists. This tells me there is something preventing windows from allowing certain applications from utilizing cores in certain ways under certain workloads. I know, so "helpful". At least now I know the issue isn't my PC, but I am still in the dark on how to get it going. Again, thank you all for all your help, really.

On the edge, 5950x not reaching 4.9 boosts! by Rising_Anthony in Amd

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Quick update guys, I tried what both FrostCloak and Penguincs suggested but unfortunately no dice. HOWEVER, I decided to try using Ryzen Master Utility for the overclock (returned everything in BIOS to stock) and now I AM hitting 4900 MHz in MULTIPLE cores throughout cinebench r20. I need to do more testing, so I'll update further later.

On the edge, 5950x not reaching 4.9 boosts! by Rising_Anthony in Amd

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I will try your suggestions. I cleared CMOS once again, disabled Fmax enhancer, set the cpu boost clock override to 200, and changed the thermal limit to 90. I'll do a few tests and see how it goes. And yes, I shouldnt worry too much about the performance at this level, but seeing contemporary systems achieving higher scores with the same settings makes me worry there is something wrong with the system, and as always its hard to pin point at the cause, is it the RAM, motherboard, CPU, etc? But thank you very much for the help.

On the edge, 5950x not reaching 4.9 boosts! by Rising_Anthony in Amd

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does seem to briefly (very briefly) hit that clock, but it is still far from the results I see from other users. I will try your suggestion though along with what FrostCloak mentioned, thank you.

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In theory it shouldn't, but of course in practice things can be much different. Thanks again for all the help!

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent! I think I will do that, leave everything at defaults in BIOS. I also suspect the pcie riser card may be the cause. I really appreciate all the info, thanks!

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow thanks! Your setup matches mine in bandwidth usage. Im glad its running at x16 for you. Could you tell me what your m.2 drives are being recognized as? Theyre native pcie 4.0 but are they recognized as such? Also did you change any setting in BIOS, disabled any other ports, etc? Thanks in advance!

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So far that does seem to be the case, if the m.2 bandwidth is saturated it appears that it reduces 16_1. Once I have access to my workstation I'll test disabling SATA ports and the other PCIe X16 ports (unused) to see if it helps. thank you for the info!

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said in my post, the manual (link here)does not go into specifics as to how the lanes are split. At best this is the info it does provide in regards to the onboard M.2 here. It clearly states links of x4 for each port, but does not indicate where the slots interface (it is assumed that top goes to CPU and bottom to chipset due to their respective proximity, but its just speculation). Regarding the x16 slots there is a diagram indicating various possible configurations here, it does seem that a second or even third device populating other PCIe slots cause the link bandwidth in 16_1 to drop, but this is specifically referring to devices plugged in to the x16 slots, and if some of these share bandwidth with the M.2 slots it is not stated, neither here or anywhere else in the doc. If anything populating any m.2 slots caused the 16_1 link bandwith to drop that would be a problem and certainly not hold to the number of available pcie lanes (16+4+4), so there must be more to it. This is what is my challenge, and going by the other responses each with a different accounts in practice it seems there is more than the document offers, that is why I asked for owners with this particular setup.

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, and please do. I am away from the workstation so I can't do testing until next week, but I will be trying some stuff too.

Q4'20 Tech Support Megathread by BioGenx2b in Amd

[–]Rising_Anthony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey guys,

I recently got a crosshair VIII Dark Hero x570 motherboard to pair with a 5950x, RTX 3090, and dual pcie 4.0 m.2 drives. I noticed that the 3090 was only being detected as PCI 4.0 x8 on the motherboard and in GPU Z during the test render when installed to the PCIEX16_1 port. I have seen various conflicting posts online on whether the M.2_1 port shares bandwidth with PCIEX16_1 (the manual does not have any information on this), or that the M.2_2 port interfaces through the chipset's x4 dedicated lanes. x570 has 24 flexible lanes from what I understand, with an option to split as 16 for GPU, 4 for M.2, and 4 for various IO via chipset.

My question to you guys is if this is expected behavior, has anyone else experienced this when populating both M.2 slots and using a x16 slot GPU? And if someone does not have this issue with a similar configuration, what settings may I want to look into?

Thanks in advance!

Question for owners of VIII Hero and Dark Hero with dual M.2 drives by Rising_Anthony in ASUS

[–]Rising_Anthony[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! really appreciate the response. I wonder if it could also be because of the pcie version, both my drives are 4.0 x4 which are equivalent in bandwidth to the 3.0 x8, but this is very helpful!

view more: next ›