-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
ASUS X99-E WS vs ASUS Rampage V Extreme...
- Thread starter Theocnoob
- Start date
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Location
- Euroland, Denmark
But you see what I there. I got us one step closer.
Honestly, you want the RVE. If your going quad, get the X99E-WS, but your barely going with 2 cards, so RVE, is the board.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
Yep, I agree 100%. I paid $219 for my Gigabyte X99-UD4 board and it runs beautifully with the updated BIOS. No issues at all with the cheapest Crucial DDR4 2133. I don't see the point of all the angst over the power circuitry and having more PCI-e lanes than anyone could possible ever use.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #85
More than anyone could ever use? Sure, maybe. But better to have too many than not enough. With the X99-E WS you can have like 160 PCIE lanes with a 5930K. That's pretty cool.
What chip do you have on that UD4? What is it overclocked to?
You can't have more lanes than mobo is letting you to use. With current motherboards config if you use high performance graphics cards ( that are blocking at least 1 more slot ) then you will use maximum of 4 pcie x16 slots + maybe something for M.2 card and SATA so in total no more than ~70. Using "standard" board you will lose 16 lanes in total.
akula2
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
- Location
- USA/Germany/India
I stumbled upon this thread, hence I joined this forum. This is my first post 
OP: if mostly for gaming usage, Z97 outshines X99 on this criteria. Get an 4790K and Asus Z97 WS board, which is a rock solid board with 4-5 yr life. I use many Asus boards from WS series since 'Supercomputer' days (P55); most are heavy Workstation builds with ZERO gaming.
OP: if mostly for gaming usage, Z97 outshines X99 on this criteria. Get an 4790K and Asus Z97 WS board, which is a rock solid board with 4-5 yr life. I use many Asus boards from WS series since 'Supercomputer' days (P55); most are heavy Workstation builds with ZERO gaming.
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #88
I stumbled upon this thread, hence I joined this forum. This is my first post
OP: if mostly for gaming usage, Z97 outshines X99 on this criteria. Get an 4790K and Asus Z97 WS board, which is a rock solid board with 4-5 yr life. I use many Asus boards from WS series since 'Supercomputer' days (P55); most are heavy Workstation builds with ZERO gaming.
My case is quite different, say e.g., PCIe lanes is not for gaming (excluding home/personal builds). Heavy GPU rendering and computational performance (single/double precision) demands a lot more out of the boards. Hence, having a good bandwidth grasp helps in determining the right build with best possible performance without sacrificing much on other hardware capabilities. The chosen platform is based on the work loads and network throughput demands. Lot of hardware is there to use (say, RAID cards)
Coming to this thread topic: I don't use ROG boards at work places; only in personal builds or based on hardware availability. This year I chose to build a few Z97 machines using Maximus VII HERO and RANGER (not available in US) boards. One of the main features to choose a ROG board is because of RAMDisk feature.
Hence, I'd like to compare Asus X99-E WS vs. Asrock X99 WS because:
a) ~$200 price difference
b) hardware design, say storage choices (it matters a lot)
c) RAM difference - 64GB vs 128GB (again, it matters a lot)
d) wider case choice (cooling/low-noise) - former is SSI-CEB, latter is EATX
My plan for the upcoming holiday season: To build ten ultra workstations based on five i7-5960X (non-ECC) and five Xeon E5-2680 v3 (ECC) CPUs.
Purpose (R&D): Design, Modeling and Simulation tasks; heavy Computational apps (single/double precision); VMs on each host OS; 27" prof. triple displays for each build; WD Red Pro or Hitachi based NAS Server with 48TB storage (thinking about Synology DiskStation DS2413+ for 12-bay solution).
The planned ten machines will share that storage on the network, hence I'm serious about hardware reliability and quality. I've earmarked quite a high budget towards them - will go as 2015 financial year IT spending.
Now, what is holding me up to freeze the requirements?
#1 Motherboard reliability - since many years, Asus WS boards proved to the best performing to meet heavy requirements. But X99 platform is entirely new: CPUs, motherboards, DDR4, GPUs and Storage choices. It's like too much on the plate; with too many options but lesser known in terms of performance and numbers. For the first time since ages, I'm a bit nervous to become an early platform adopter!
Burning issue(?): why some Asus X99 boards gone kaput? Is WS board safe from OC socket or from any other issue? I don't know yet. Hence, I'm considering to split X99 builds into two groups:
all 5960Xs on Asrock X99 WS boards &
all Xeon-E5 on Asus X99-E X99 WS board
BUT, what about Asrock X99 WS performance and reliability? I'm completely new to Asrock WS series, hence a big question mark. Honestly, I'm stuck here. I'll wait for a few more weeks to see better reviews on both boards. Definitely, no ROG X99 board.
#2 GPUs: no release of Nividia's Maxell based Titan Black II (if there will be one!), Quadro and Tesla cards. All are mandatory for planned requirements. Let me re-iterate again: Zero gaming purpose.
#3 Storage solution: considering SATA Express because of excellent performance benefits; multiple times over the best performing SSD, Samsung 850 Pro series (e.g., Mushkin Scorpion 980GB PCie SSD). I'm taking time because each one costs a lot of money (multiple builds). Considering Intel's NVMe solution too.
#4 CPU cooling: CM Neptons performing excellent when it comes to cooling in Z97 workstations, but their stock fans are annoying at high loads in lab environment. Hence I'm making plans to dump all stock fans in favor of quietest ones shortly. Now, what's the problem with X99? I'm considering a new company for the first time for all ten X99 builds. Swiftech 220-X or 240-X. It seems both offer great cooling and lowest-noise performance, however I need some more time to comprehend performance data on the latter model (new).
Note: As a matter of policy, I don't allow any manual OCing of CPU/GPU/RAM in all workstations at work places. Only 'supported' Turbo or Boost range is used considering from various aspects or pre-OC'ed GPUs are purchased only on few occasions, say EVGA Superclocked Titan Black.
I do a lot of manual OCing on the home builds and mostly don't prefer to use board software (say auto-tuning). Since a few months, I'm enjoying killing G3258 CPUs over 4790Ks
I regret if this post gone too long, but it's warranted considering (intricacies and unknowns) the new platform. I shall post in between whenever I find new reviews or updates on X99 hardware.
*Update: I just watched a Newegg video on Asrock X99 (first one) Extreme4 board. Feature-wise it looks good but product quality and supplied accessories look above average. It's not that impressive when compared to Asus X99-A (entry level) for the money paid. Anyway, I don't need this model. I'll look for Asrock X99 WS reviews and videos in the coming days...
Thanks for all that information... I'll read it later as its rather involved.
Last edited:
Just thought I'd share this here if you're an X99-E WS owner. EK petition for waterblock set: http://thinkcell.ekwb.com/idea/waterblocks-for-asus039s-x99-e-ws-motherboard
The PCH and VRM get quite hot on my board with overvolted memory, higher VCCSA, etc. WCing things like memory and hard drives is useless. And yes, they have the added benefit of looking awesome.
I use ln2 and don't need it. Even at 4.7ghzl
Cpu, memory at 3k+ they are not needed. It won't get higher overclocks in most cases, the blocks are also restrictive.
Regardless, it's good to know they are coming out with one.
Sorry.. my post was written with way more dismissal than intended...lol!
Cpu, memory at 3k+ they are not needed. It won't get higher overclocks in most cases, the blocks are also restrictive.
Regardless, it's good to know they are coming out with one.
Sorry.. my post was written with way more dismissal than intended...lol!
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #93
I stumbled upon this thread, hence I joined this forum. This is my first post
OP: if mostly for gaming usage, Z97 outshines X99 on this criteria. Get an 4790K and Asus Z97 WS board, which is a rock solid board with 4-5 yr life. I use many Asus boards from WS series since 'Supercomputer' days (P55); most are heavy Workstation builds with ZERO gaming.
My case is quite different, say e.g., PCIe lanes is not for gaming (excluding home/personal builds). Heavy GPU rendering and computational performance (single/double precision) demands a lot more out of the boards. Hence, having a good bandwidth grasp helps in determining the right build with best possible performance without sacrificing much on other hardware capabilities. The chosen platform is based on the work loads and network throughput demands. Lot of hardware is there to use (say, RAID cards)
Coming to this thread topic: I don't use ROG boards at work places; only in personal builds or based on hardware availability. This year I chose to build a few Z97 machines using Maximus VII HERO and RANGER (not available in US) boards. One of the main features to choose a ROG board is because of RAMDisk feature.
Hence, I'd like to compare Asus X99-E WS vs. Asrock X99 WS because:
a) ~$200 price difference
b) hardware design, say storage choices (it matters a lot)
c) RAM difference - 64GB vs 128GB (again, it matters a lot)
d) wider case choice (cooling/low-noise) - former is SSI-CEB, latter is EATX
My plan for the upcoming holiday season: To build ten ultra workstations based on five i7-5960X (non-ECC) and five Xeon E5-2680 v3 (ECC) CPUs.
Purpose (R&D): Design, Modeling and Simulation tasks; heavy Computational apps (single/double precision); VMs on each host OS; 27" prof. triple displays for each build; WD Red Pro or Hitachi based NAS Server with 48TB storage (thinking about Synology DiskStation DS2413+ for 12-bay solution).
The planned ten machines will share that storage on the network, hence I'm serious about hardware reliability and quality. I've earmarked quite a high budget towards them - will go as 2015 financial year IT spending.
Now, what is holding me up to freeze the requirements?
#1 Motherboard reliability - since many years, Asus WS boards proved to the best performing to meet heavy requirements. But X99 platform is entirely new: CPUs, motherboards, DDR4, GPUs and Storage choices. It's like too much on the plate; with too many options but lesser known in terms of performance and numbers. For the first time since ages, I'm a bit nervous to become an early platform adopter!
Burning issue(?): why some Asus X99 boards gone kaput? Is WS board safe from OC socket or from any other issue? I don't know yet. Hence, I'm considering to split X99 builds into two groups:
all 5960Xs on Asrock X99 WS boards &
all Xeon-E5 on Asus X99-E X99 WS board
BUT, what about Asrock X99 WS performance and reliability? I'm completely new to Asrock WS series, hence a big question mark. Honestly, I'm stuck here. I'll wait for a few more weeks to see better reviews on both boards. Definitely, no ROG X99 board.
#2 GPUs: no release of Nividia's Maxell based Titan Black II (if there will be one!), Quadro and Tesla cards. All are mandatory for planned requirements. Let me re-iterate again: Zero gaming purpose.
#3 Storage solution: considering SATA Express because of excellent performance benefits; multiple times over the best performing SSD, Samsung 850 Pro series (e.g., Mushkin Scorpion 980GB PCie SSD). I'm taking time because each one costs a lot of money (multiple builds). Considering Intel's NVMe solution too.
#4 CPU cooling: CM Neptons performing excellent when it comes to cooling in Z97 workstations, but their stock fans are annoying at high loads in lab environment. Hence I'm making plans to dump all stock fans in favor of quietest ones shortly. Now, what's the problem with X99? I'm considering a new company for the first time for all ten X99 builds. Swiftech 220-X or 240-X. It seems both offer great cooling and lowest-noise performance, however I need some more time to comprehend performance data on the latter model (new).
Note: As a matter of policy, I don't allow any manual OCing of CPU/GPU/RAM in all workstations at work places. Only 'supported' Turbo or Boost range is used considering from various aspects or pre-OC'ed GPUs are purchased only on few occasions, say EVGA Superclocked Titan Black.
I do a lot of manual OCing on the home builds and mostly don't prefer to use board software (say auto-tuning). Since a few months, I'm enjoying killing G3258 CPUs over 4790Ks
I regret if this post gone too long, but it's warranted considering (intricacies and unknowns) the new platform. I shall post in between whenever I find new reviews or updates on X99 hardware.
*Update: I just watched a Newegg video on Asrock X99 (first one) Extreme4 board. Feature-wise it looks good but product quality and supplied accessories look above average. It's not that impressive when compared to Asus X99-A (entry level) for the money paid. Anyway, I don't need this model. I'll look for Asrock X99 WS reviews and videos in the coming days...
150 000 words and not one bit of help... just talking about yourself. What was the point?
All you did was tell me to go Z97 and then you rambled about things that had nothing to do with anything...
*added to ignore list.
Last edited:
akula2
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
- Location
- USA/Germany/India
Perhaps it was my mistake to post on a thread posted by someone who can't apply brain to comprehend what was written!
I thought why to create a new thread. Never mind.
**so glad, one gone!
I thought why to create a new thread. Never mind.
**so glad, one gone!
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Location
- Euroland, Denmark
At the end of the day, X99 is the choice, Z97 was never a topic, and anyone can go an buy Z97, but X99 is that slight bit more non teenage exclusive. Facts and usage is one thing, pride and wishes from a system is a totally different one.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #96
Exactly. I've said many times that I'm building this for e-peen, and to have a better computer than my friends.
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Location
- Euroland, Denmark
As for that, have you made a choice yet?
If colour wasnt important, i'd be all over the Gigabyte X-99 SOC Force, its getting great reviews, left right and center!
If colour wasnt important, i'd be all over the Gigabyte X-99 SOC Force, its getting great reviews, left right and center!
That's actually a good question. In the time you are thinking about the best board I already killed 2 bioses, sent MSI to rma and got ASUS RVE
About that waterblock topic couple of posts ago, both my X99 boards were heating up less than X79 and temps are pretty low with waterblock on CPU and no fans around ( fully accurate touch test
). I see no point to spend money on waterblock for X99 mobo unless you like how it looks like.There is also no need to raise most of the voltages even for higher overclock and VCCSA can stay at stock values up to 3200 memory clock if not higher.
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Location
- Euroland, Denmark
That's actually a good question. In the time you are thinking about the best board I already killed 2 bioses, sent MSI to rma and got ASUS RVE
About that waterblock topic couple of posts ago, both my X99 boards were heating up less than X79 and temps are pretty low with waterblock on CPU and no fans around ( fully accurate touch test
There is also no need to raise most of the voltages even for higher overclock and VCCSA can stay at stock values up to 3200 memory clock if not higher.
I am ever so happy to hear that, since i do own the MSI X99S Sli Plus, yet to even fire it up and i want to return it!
