Mr. Fox

It is really too bad this is not an standardized industry effort. ASUS has their SP rating, MSI their Force2 rating. They are totally different and not comparable, and you can't really cross-reference them accurately with limited data. And, then none of the other OEMs have something like those two different approaches. I would imagine that companies like Intel and AMD would be very set against that kind of a thing because it would impact their ability to sell crappy silicon samples to people that would be otherwise oblivious to the fact that they bought a junk CPU.

I don't recall the kernel versions, but they were all the latest of the distros tested, not the LTS kernels/distros. I know they were in the high 5's and 6's. It was something I was paying close attention to while I was trying to resolve the issue on the Strix Z690-E. There have been no issues with the Z690 Dark and I believe at least part of the issue is a flawed implementation of ACPI on the ASUS mobo. Newer versions Windows can function fine without ACPI functioning correctly, but that causes significant issues with Linux.

I don't think it applies to only "non-technical" people. I consider myself highly technical, but your point is completely valid as it relates to those that are, in fact, non-technical. Windows could still be the better option for many highly technical people. In some cases it is, in fact, the only viable option. This is especially true as it relates to business. There are applications that are used in business that only function in a Windows environment. And, then there are highly technical consumers that are simply not interested in consuming a lot of time and energy on something just for shiggles. I lack the time for it, and finding the time is not on my list of priorities. Yes, I absolutely loathe Windows 10 and 11. But, I am still using both of them because it is necessary. Necessary in part for my job, and in equal part due to my lack of time and interest necessary to become a leading expert on Linux. I love using Linux most of the time, which is why I have it installed on all three of my systems. I am more advanced than most PC users. If I had encountered the same challenges I have tried to work through on the one system with the odd behavior with goofed up CPU clock speeds as an ordinary PC enthusiast, gamer or consumer, I would have immediately reclaimed the drive space for use by Windows. It irks the crap out of me when I can't figure out a Linux issue because I want to use it and it would replace Windows for me if it could.

I was extremely envious of the silicon quality of both CPUs but let's be honest. Unless you are getting paid for setting world records by a sponsor that covers the costs having a phenomenal chip is a stroke of luck that doesn't do a darned thing for you in the grand scheme of things. If someone was offering me 2 to 3 times what I paid for something that I was not directly and measurably benefitting from having I would sell it as well. At the end of the day, I (we) realize no tangible benefit from having an average sample versus a superior sample. Ranking on a leaderboard means nothing tangible and contributes only to personal gratification and ego. There is some value in the personal satisfaction, but it's a hobby not an occupation. Latest and older kernels were tested. That was also one of the reasons for trying different distros. The kernel that works correctly on my Z690 Dark and 13900K is older. I am not making any assumptions about Linux, only making comments in the context of consumer adoption. What happens in the business realm is relevant to Linux and the business that rely on it, but not to me and other consumers looking for a replacement for Windows. I was only speaking in terms of Linux being viewed as a viable replacement for Windows to consumers. As much as I loathe Windows 10 and 11, bugs aside, they generally work right and I have enough experience with Windows to fend for myself. I don't have to compile source code to install software, or recompile OS code to fix issues, and I don't usually have to do strange things to make applications work correctly with Windows. I know that some people enjoy that. If I knew how, I might enjoy it. But, I don't and don't want to burn any calories on it. To the best of my knowledge, that is how most PC owners, including enthusiasts, feel about it. I don't see that as a bad thing, just a difference in personal priorities. When Linux works correctly for me it is mostly a better option than Windows and I really love Linux in general. When it doesn't work as intended, it really sucks. It's truly a love/hate relationship. I think it is better than Windows, except when it isn't, LOL.

What they are not capturing is what th 5% and 2% represents. They would need to exclude people like me that are not going to purchase a new GPU at any price and only take the percentage from the people actually planning to purchase a new GPU. Maybe they are calculating it that way, but it's not clear. If you include people like me in the calculation the numbers will be misleading. What they are also not capturing is how many will still pay that much to have a new GPU even though they do not feel the price is justified. I did that with the 3090 KPE. Was the price idiotic? Yes, it was ludicrous. Did I spend the money anyway? Yes, I did. NVIDIA knows this. They don't care whether people think the price represents value. They only care if people will spend the money anyway, in spite of their opinion that the price is unreasonable.

It is strange that everything seems kosher for me on the 13900K and when I was running the 12900K on the Strix D4 mobo everything was fine on Linux. It is either the Z690-E or 12900KS, or both. I installed openSUSE last night with the ACPI=off kernel argument and fewer things are broken than before. I do not get the long list of errors when Linux is loading now and neofetch reports the correct clock speeds. CPU-X reports clocks close (100MHz below actual) but hardinfo still shows them way off (4100MHz instead of 5400 P cores and 4300 E cores). It could also be the Linux applications themselves that the developers are not updating. Even if the Linux kernel is providing the proper support, if the apps are not updated they may not interpret things correctly. This kind of thing is what holds Linux back from becoming a dominant force in the PC technology realm. Most people (me included) don't have the knowledge, desire or time to compile code and fix broken Linux code. Being "free" is both a strength and a major weakness. It is probably pretty safe to assume that most of the experienced Linux developers do not own cutting edge hardware, and they're only going to burn calories on hardware that matters to them.

It is strange that everything seems kosher for me on the 13900K and when I was running the 12900K on the Strix D4 mobo everything was fine on Linux. It is either the Z690-E or 12900KS, or both. I installed openSUSE last night with the ACPI=off kernel argument and fewer things are broken than before. I do not get the long list of errors when Linux is loading now and neofetch reports the correct clock speeds. CPU-X reports clocks close (100MHz below actual) but hardinfo still shows them way off (4100MHz instead of 5400 P cores and 4300 E cores). Edit: it could also be the Linux applications themselves that the developers are not updating. Even if the Linux kernel is providing the proper support, if the apps are not updated they may not interpret things correctly. This kind of thing is what holds Linux back from becoming a dominant force in the PC technology realm. Most people (me included) don't have the knowledge, desire or time to compile code and fix broken Linux code. Being "free" is both a strength and a major weakness. It is probably pretty safe to assume that most of the experienced Linux developers do not own cutting edge hardware, and they're only going to burn calories on hardware that matters to them.

This is the system I am struggling to make viable on Linux. I think it may be something bugged in the ACPI implementation by the dumb-dumbs at ASUS on the Strix ZX690-E. I cannot get the CPU turbo clocks to display correctly in any desirable monitoring tools. CPU-X shows the 12900KS clocks to a fixed 5.4GHz (correct) under load, still not correct at idle, but all of the "normal" things I use show either a fixed 3.4GHz (c-states disabled) or a fixed 4.1GHz (c-states enabled). I have tried KDE, POP!_OS and ZorinOS and all have the same issue. I have tried passing a variety of kernel parameters in GRUB. I have installed different packages intended for monitoring clock speeds and it is hit or miss. The couple that actually work correctly are worthless to me because they are CLI stuff I can't use the way I want to. I also wonder if it is something with the 12900KS not being recognized properly like a 12900K and 13900K. At any rate, this is a classic example of a thing that make noobs believe that Linux is not a viable replacement for Windows, and on this system it probably isn't solely for this reason. I would not embrace Linux if this were an example of normal, but I have used it enough to know it is an exception (albeit a more common problem than desired). Banshee The other two systems work exactly as they should... pleasure using Linux on both of them, in contrast. Unfortunate that the ASUS machine doesn't deliver the same quality of experience. Wraith Half-Breed

Oh, trust me... based on what I have seen in the past two years, the limits of human stupidity are beyond measure and incredibly stupefying. There are roughly the same number of imbeciles as there are people with common sense. Apparently, NVIDIA recognizes this and is willing to take advantage of the mentally handicapped shoppers. On another note... Wraith Half-Breed Banshee This is the system I am struggling to make viable on Linux. I think it may be something bugged in the ACPI implementation by the dumb-dumbs at ASUS on the Strix ZX690-E. I cannot get the CPU turbo clocks to display correctly in any desirable monitoring tools. CPU-X shows the 12900KS clocks to a fixed 5.4GHz (correct) under load, still not correct at idle, but all of the "normal" things I use show either a fixed 3.4GHz (c-states disabled) or a fixed 4.1GHz (c-states enabled). I have tried KDE, POP!_OS and ZorinOS and all have the same issue. I have tried passing a variety of kernel parameters in GRUB. I have installed different packages intended for monitoring clock speeds and it is hit or miss. The couple that actually work correctly are worthless to me because they are CLI stuff I can't use the way I want to. I also wonder if it is something with the 12900KS not being recognized properly like a 12900K and 13900K. At any rate, this is a classic example of a thing that make noobs believe that Linux is not a viable replacement for Windows, and on this system it probably isn't solely for this reason. I would not embrace Linux if this were an example of normal, but I have used it enough to know it is an exception (albeit a more common problem than desired).

I am surprised it made it that high before the BSOD. Usually see errors start to occur about 8-10°C sooner than that. I have found that a memory overclock that is unstable at 45°C might run error-free at 35°C, and vice versa. It kind of makes sense considering the clock speeds and voltage though. You can't do that without producing heat. That's why using a fan or putting them on water is recommended. Taking the stock heatsinks beautifying heating blankets off also helps, but not doing it the right way can rip the chips off the PCB because the imbeciles that manufacture RAM use adhesives that are stronger than the solder. (They don't need to use any adhesives and it is ridiculous that they do.)

They received a lot of hate and crap for the stupidity, and 11th Gen was a failure because of it. Nobody wanted it. Chances they will do that again might be pretty slim. Time will tell if they are dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot financially a second time. Nothing ever surprises me though. Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Micro$lop and crApple are run from the top down by fricken idiots. So, I will not have a surprised look on my face the next time that any of them prove my point about their abject idiocy. It is not a question of if, but when, with the retarded tech giants

I haven't seen one yet that lacks it. It would be very unusual for a desktop motherboard intended for gamers and enthusiasts that isn't a pile of crap (i.e. Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.) to be missing CSM. CSM is an absolute necessity for a variety of reasons, including OSes that need it and diagnostic/repair utilities that require it. Any garbage desktops and laptops that do not have CSM are severely limited and crippled. I rejected the opportunity to purchase the X170 that I used for development purposes for zTecpc because Clevo lacked the common sense to include it. According to @Premathere was no way he could add CSM support, so rather than being an admirable alternative to the turdbook cess pool, it instantly became a worthless object of contempt to me. The aftermarket desktop mobo manufacturers do not lack the basic common sense that their loser laptop and "big brand" OEMs do.

100%... I have never experienced any real issues with either of them. They look better, work better, perform better than anything that came after them. I'm not sure they are committed to anything--certainly not excellence or the sheeple flock they think they own--but, the people responsible for their atrocities are such demented losers that they probably should "be committed" in a different use of that verbiage. Best solution is to not utilize any of their worthless, buggy "security" trash. Remove Defender.7z

“And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.” - Saint Mark, the Evangelist But, hey... it fits the 4-year old socket. Must be good to go. Some features are not working, but that's OK. I saved money. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I decided to play with the Sabrent M-die some more. Not my best, but still very good.

Yup, exactly. And, their X3D "upgrade" CPU was castrated. Nice upgrade joke. Cookie-cutter garbage for the gamer kiddos. Everyone gets a trophy for participating. One size fits all. Yay. Utterly worthless for anyone interested in overclocking.

It has been a selling point for the underdog, but you're correct. It is kind of a gimmick. As AMD grows toward achieving parity with Intel, I expect that to become a thing of the past. They can't compete on performance without competing on the financial side. It takes money, and that model is a money-loser for AMD and for motherboard manufacturers. Without support from motherboard manufacturers (as we have all seen, they treat AMD less favorably) they will have difficulty gaining parity on performance or financial strength.

I guess the degree to which it matters really depends on what you find the most value in. AM4 kept the same socket for a long time, and so did AM3, but those that kept the same motherboard didn't get the full benefit of generational architectural changes by remaining on an old chipset. That is great for everyone that found value in that. Those that wanted to enjoy the emerging technology to its fullest were in no better place than the typical 2-generation socket pattern Intel owners enjoy. For the most part, the only people complaining about Intel only using a socket for 2 generations are AMD owners. Most folks that prefer Intel have nothing to complain about and don't.

Lot of stupid people out there. Too many, actually. Idiocy has flourished over the past few years and become a force to be reckoned with. It may soon be illegal to be normal, express dissent with stupidity or demonstrate common sense in public. And, if you teach your kids what's right and what's wrong, it is domestic terrorism. Maybe. Probably so. Some Threadripper owners were not so lucky, and I recall at lot of AM4 owners being livid about AM5, in spite of the obvious improvement in the design of everything about it, including the socket itself. Unfortunately, PC tech is frequently a monkey-see, monkey-do realm, especially when it comes to schemes and scams that increase revenue. The more progress (and money) AMD makes, the less likely they will be to do what is right for their customers. Only time will tell.

Spend the extra $100 if you are not planning an upgrade for a few years. If you divide the extra cost out over the time you plan to use it, the extra cost is minuscule, but the extra performance is beneficial. If you change your mind later it will cost you the full price of the better CPU instead of the small price difference today. Plus, if AMD's price drop is temporary you'll lose even more money buying the cheaper CPU.

Thank you. The main reason I kept it is because I can't really do much more with the 2080 Ti FTW3 than what I have already done. I will be able to grab a few extra points using different hardware. The 2080 Ti is definitely a superior GPU overall. My top Fire Strike score with the 2080 Ti is substantially higher. But, yes... for 3060 Ti this is very good. Much better than before the shunt mod. It is still gimped on voltage, but at least the power limits are gone now. The 2080 Ti with the shunt mod, high voltage and 2000W vBIOS clocks quite a bit higher on core and little higher on memory. https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/19438829/fs/28914049

Shunt mod FTW! https://hwbot.org/submission/5130408_ | https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/83902699

Yes, that would be correct. Improved IPC and significantly higher clock speeds is too much for the 5950X to keep up with. DDR5 is better. The new Ryzen platform also handles memory a whole lot better in general as well. Not nearly as many functionality and stability issues as Ryzen 9.

Well, I am glad that the only thing messed up is your car.

Sorry to hear that you were in an accident. I hope you were not hurt, and I hope the person that did it has insurance.

In case anyone is interested...