cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
I got my 32GB (2x 16GB) kit running at 2666 15 CAS w/ 1.35v. Seemed to work alright, but I didn't do any intensive stress tests.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Very weak troll bait. Even ignoring that CPUs are only part of Intel's business, Ryzen isn't destroying anything of Intel's thus far. It's a decent competitor for the price; nothing more and nothing less.
We've known Intel's roadmap for quite some time now. I believe his post was meant fasciously as troll bait.
Troll bait to an Intel fan, valid and interesting question to an objective mind.
Whoa I just realized what you're referring to... I hadn't noticed that there was a test size discrepancy! That's interesting and peculiar... I have no clue as to why that happened other than to suspect as a result of overall Cache Size changing due to disablement of a 4C module.
I've done my absolute best to modify the first 8C/16T to only be the 128MB worth of data and still retain the correct overall size as the 4C/8T for ease of back-and-forth comparisons.
View attachment 20739
Can do.When you get time please could you consider testing 1+1 core setup as it may provide some interesting insight to how AIDA calculates overall data set test size and also to see how the L3 cache works per CCX with cores disabled; some of it may be more of a validation follow-up test.
Thanks and much appreciated.
The Flare X seem like a surefire bet. Says made for Ryzen and it's on at least MSI's QVL list. 3200 seems to be the max (without overclocking) so I'll probably just stick with that unless the situation drastically changes.
Only thing that could be better is I had to drop to 16GB from the 32GB I'm at now. 16 is still "enough" but I'd have preferred the full 32GB if given a choice (at desired speed).
So #1, virtually unchanged results still.When you get time please could you consider testing 1+1 core setup as it may provide some interesting insight to how AIDA calculates overall data set test size and also to see how the L3 cache works per CCX with cores disabled; some of it may be more of a validation follow-up test.
Thanks and much appreciated.
So #1, virtually unchanged results still.
#2, apparently I CAN change the Stride size! By chance I just right-clicked on the graph and up popped more options :| 1024, 2048 and 4096 Bytes are also available above the default, and 256, 128 and 64 Bytes below it.
#3, theory confirmed about the max amount it will try transferring being based off how much cache is available. With both CCX available the test once more runs up to 256MB.
Note: Given the proximity of this run to the system being booted up, the oddness that occurred at the 16K/32K area MAY have been something happening in the background. Nevertheless, the results are as I mentioned, virtually the same. I presume that the bulk of this is due to there only being 4 threads and just not enough muscle to transfer the data between the Cache and the RAM, given that at 4+0 the Memory bandwidth saw a few GB/s dip. Though... it looks like that might not be true! Tests on the memory speeds are in at 1+1 (still DDR4-3200 14-15-15): Read 45.1GB/s, Write 46.4GB/s, Copy 41GB/s... However, looks like it still IS true i a sense, as the Cache scores are in and they're pretty much looking to be at 100GB/s per Core on L1/2 reads, 50GB/s per Core on L1/2 Writes, and screw math but roughly same on Copys. L3s are more math that generally equates to the same fraction of 8 lol
Anyways, here are your results at 1+1:
View attachment 20870
EDIT: It isn't boosting beyond the 100MHz over stock it seems, so 3500MHz, where as in 4C4T mode it's hitting 3900. Mind you I'm basing this on the FPU VP8 results indicating 3500. Monitored it while it ran and it only hit 3430.
Up to 16K it's pretty much just Core1-Thread1 (aka Core0 in Affinity speak) loaded to 100%. After that, Thread2 (aka Core1) starts to see some usage, maybe... 5%? Around that 1M step-up it begins to see probably 12% and around that 8M step spikes every couple seconds up to maybe 40%. Then on the last few, maybe around 32M there's some spikes that occur on Core2-Thread1 (aka Core2) of maybe 25%, and Core2-Thread4 (core3) of maybe 20%, at probably 2sec intervals. I couldn't tell if they happened to trade off or occur at the same times. This is on Balanced..Ah your the man
Ok that definitely confirms the shared L3 cache is maintained in its entirety even with 1+1, so fits my thoughts that any simulations reviews of say the 4C 1500 have to be taken a bit wary.
Still wierd what is happening at say the 6-8MB (depending if AIDA or the bespoke tool hardware.fr used).
From watching the tool, does it tie affinity to a particular thread and core and so CCX?
Just wondering if that is why 8MB to 16MB has same latency as system memory as it must page memory rather than use both CCX.
Or from a coherent perspective it is not truly an overall 16MB L3 cache but always just 2 separate 8MB L3 cache and then has to go to system memory after 8MB.
We know the improvements to AoTS came down to how they use cache/memory.
Thanks again.
I always thought that it is the APU that needs faster DDR Memory. Does faster memory helps a Ryzen CPU ?
What he was implying, was that the answer to your question is contained somewhere within the 200 previous posts of this thread.Yes, but I have you read my remark ?
Hi, I'm new here but found this thread very useful, I'm just buying my first new pc build in quite a while and I decided to go with Ryzen because of the multi-threading for 3d and video editing (plus it just feels far more exciting than intel at the moment). Can anyone recommend a good 3600 DDR4 ram set? I was looking at the Corsair Vengeance LPX, any experience with that one? (http://www.corsair.com/en-gb/vengea...600mhz-c16-memory-kit-red-cmk32gx4m4b3600c16r) Is there a benefit for keeping it at 2x8, or would 4x8 still work fine? Thx
You are better off with 2 sticks rather than 4. However, 8GB sticks seem to clock higher than 16GB.
If you really need the memory, then 16GB x 2 is preferred, though 8GB x 2 may have better luck with the speed.
However, each RAM stick has different properties. Find a few motherboards and look on their QVL list on their website and see if there are any sticks that hit the speed you want and buy that specific model.
For example, with my mobo it is only confirmed to reach 2667 with 16GB on a few specific ADATA sticks. But I was able to overclock my previous G.Skill TridentZ sticks (16GB x 2) to 2667 after tweaking voltage and timings.
That said, if you would rather have the speed, than the 16GB Flare X 3200 kit is the best option right now.
You are better off with 2 sticks rather than 4. However, 8GB sticks seem to clock higher than 16GB.
If you really need the memory, then 16GB x 2 is preferred, though 8GB x 2 may have better luck with the speed.
However, each RAM stick has different properties. Find a few motherboards and look on their QVL list on their website and see if there are any sticks that hit the speed you want and buy that specific model.
For example, with my mobo it is only confirmed to reach 2667 with 16GB on a few specific ADATA sticks. But I was able to overclock my previous G.Skill TridentZ sticks (16GB x 2) to 2667 after tweaking voltage and timings.
That said, if you would rather have the speed, than the 16GB Flare X 3200 kit is the best option right now.
Looks like the Asus is the only one confirmed to be able to hit 3200 on 32GB.
http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb...0316.pdf?_ga=1.190964906.120583173.1489863893
Specifically with these kits:
F4-3200C16Q-32GFX
F4-3200C16Q-32GFXR
Though I can't seem to find either of those sold anywhere (at least in the US).
2x 16g Dual Rank PC 3200 @ 14-14-14-34
I wanna create a list and keep it up to date so buyers save tons of hours researching here and there everywhere. I know Ryzen is still new and many tests are needed, but nothing better than finding all the info in one place
First time I've seen it broken down like this
If you check what he says from this point on it gets entertaining. Suggesting that a BIOS might fix problems for overclocking lower latency memory kits (he rambles on about how things are not officially supported as well clearly stating that it might work or not and if not to bad) , then he goes on that the performance can be so little and only for certain benchmarks that I'm wondering why start this endeavour down the road of futility?
And as a counterpoint he throws in his record of firestrike where he achieved a memory frequency of 3600 but that was with an expensive piece of ram with way better timings.
Talk about mixed messages .....
If you check what he says from this point on it gets entertaining. Suggesting that a BIOS might fix problems for overclocking lower latency memory kits (he rambles on about how things are not officially supported as well clearly stating that it might work or not and if not to bad) , then he goes on that the performance can be so little and only for certain benchmarks that I'm wondering why start this endeavour down the road of futility?
And as a counterpoint he throws in his record of firestrike where he achieved a memory frequency of 3600 but that was with an expensive piece of ram with way better timings.
Talk about mixed messages .....
Nice to see that you can squeeze some more performance with better RAM, and it's similar to what I've seen after getting the Flare X kit.
Sadly, it does not appear to be reaching 7700K level gaming performance, and I'm starting to doubt it ever will. In any case, I am still happy with the purchase and I am getting decent performance so I'm not complaining.
Ryzen itself is a mixed fucking message, what do you want.
LOL would not the FlareX be the same exact specs as the G.Skill Trident Z 3200 MHz CL14 ?? It sure does looks so!
Anyway what I would like to see is how the FlareX 3200 CL14 compares to the F4-3400C16D-32GTZ - 16-18-18-36 and the F4-3733C17D-8GTZA - 17-17-17-37, but my guess here is that it would be almost identical.
Yeah I would like someone to make sense on youtube not just talking for the sake of talking and saying nothing .....
The difference is, the Flare-X is guaranteed to run at those speeds on a Ryzen mobo out of the box, the G.Skill Trident Z kit isn't.