# How High Can You Fly? AIDA64 Memory Bandwidth Challenge



## o1dschoo1




----------



## o1dschoo1

Lol don't have a cpuz ss In that rip 
I'll post a dual channel run on my Ryzen setup later


----------



## domdtxdissar




----------



## storm-chaser

o1dschoo1 said:


> View attachment 2536742


Damn. And I thought I had a fighting chance! lol
Both z820s have 8 channel memory. I suspect the latency is slightly lower on the 2673 v2 because it clocks higher on the NB than a 2696 v2 will.

First Z820 with two E5 2673 v2 processors (the oem brother to the 2667 v2, so this is false reporting)
These are identical 64GB (16x4GB) kits 









Second z820 with two 2696 V2 processors


----------



## o1dschoo1

storm-chaser said:


> Damn. And I thought I had a fighting chance! lol
> Both z820s have 8 channel memory. I suspect the latency is slightly lower on the 2673 v2 because it clocks higher on the NB than a 2696 v2 will.
> 
> First Z820 with two E5 2673 v2 processors (the oem brother to the 2667 v2, so this is false reporting)
> These are identical 64GB (16x4GB) kits
> View attachment 2536753
> 
> 
> Second z820 with two 2696 V2 processors
> View attachment 2536755


That's quad channel 4000 at cl15 with tightened subtimings. I could've hit 125 if I ran them at cl14 4k.


----------



## anticommon

My 7980xe rig was doing 100-110 @ 3600CL17 and actually went down when I swapped to a 3600CL14 kit (@ 3733CL14) which is... odd. Will poke around for the screenshots


----------



## ShrimpBrime

1134mhz (567mhz effective) Overclocked from XMP profile.


----------



## JSHamlet234

G.Skill F4-3733C17-8GTZSW underclocked to 3200MT/S.


----------



## Garlicky

4X8 3600CL16, cant go faster than 3733 with 4 sticks, prob a bios problem.


----------



## 8051

The AMD 5950x is impressive and at CR1 with 32GiB too!


----------



## storm-chaser

Thank guys! Looks like we have some interest, therefore, I will be creating the leaderboard for this comp later tonight / or in the very early morning hours. So when you come back tomorrow, it should be in place.


----------



## JSHamlet234

domdtxdissar said:


> View attachment 2536744
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536745


Whoa! Is that a glitch?


----------



## mirzet1976




----------



## domdtxdissar

JSHamlet234 said:


> Whoa! Is that a glitch?


Hydra in action, not a glitch, can be reproduced.


----------



## storm-chaser

JSHamlet234 said:


> Whoa! Is that a glitch?


Project Hydra Overclocking Tool for AMD Ryzen 5000 Rivals Ryzen Master | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)


----------



## JSHamlet234

domdtxdissar said:


> Hydra in action, not a glitch, can be reproduced.


How is that possible? The theoretical maximum bandwidth for Dual Channel DDR4-3800 is 60,800MB/sec.


----------



## storm-chaser

JSHamlet234 said:


> How is that possible? The theoretical maximum bandwidth for Dual Channel DDR4-3800 is 60,800MB/sec.


That's what I was thinking as well, I just didn't actually do the math to figure it out.


----------



## storm-chaser

o1dschoo1 said:


> View attachment 2536742


I need your write and copy speeds. Can you run the AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark so I can fill in the leaderboard. thx


----------



## OCHIANG-CHENG-TAO




----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> That's what I was thinking as well, I just didn't actually do the math to figure it out.


The same way Zen2 is benching above theoretical bandwidth copy limits in Aida thanks to the L3 cache, Hydra make use of overboost, forced affinity and cache tricks on Zen3 which makes Aida show too high numbers. Its pretty much only Aida64 that is showing these impossible numbers.. Can also be seen with Alder Lake above 100 mhz baseclock (showing too low latency numbers)

Just made a new Aida run now, using newest Aida beta 6.50.5819








Alittle lower numbers because almost 19 hours uptime and like 20 chrome tabs open


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> The same way Zen2 is benching above theoretical bandwidth copy limits in Aida thanks to the L3 cache, Hydra make use of overboost, forced affinity and cache tricks on Zen3 which makes Aida show too high numbers. Its pretty much only Aida64 that is showing these impossible numbers.. Can also be seen with Alder Lake above 100 mhz baseclock (showing too low latency numbers)
> 
> Just made a new Aida run now, using newest Aida beta 6.50.5819
> View attachment 2536959
> 
> Alittle lower numbers because almost 19 hours uptime and like 20 chrome tabs open


What else do we have as a comprehensive program to compete with AIDA64 for accurate r/w/c speeds? Sounds like aida64 is not improving to deal with brand new hardware from 2020 and on. Also base clock bug for artifacts in latency mode.

So just to confirm, this is actually a glitch, right? It's just a reproducible glitch? lol


----------



## o1dschoo1

storm-chaser said:


> I need your write and copy speeds. Can you run the AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark so I can fill in the leaderboard. thx


nah i dont have that setup in a case or anything atm. Im good just wanted to post


----------



## cstkl1

aida bug


----------



## storm-chaser

o1dschoo1 said:


> nah i dont have that setup in a case or anything atm. Im good just wanted to post


Hey, it's all good in the hood. 



cstkl1 said:


> aida bug


Does it happen if you don't change FSB? i.e. keep the FSB to 100MHz?


----------



## cstkl1

storm-chaser said:


> Hey, it's all good in the hood.
> 
> 
> Does it happen if you don't change FSB? i.e. keep the FSB to 100MHz?


the very nature that aida is tied to some calculation of a setting instead of measuring already disqualifies aida from everything


----------



## storm-chaser

New Rule PPL


cstkl1 said:


> the very nature that aida is tied to some calculation of a setting instead of measuring already disqualifies aida from everything


got it.


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> View attachment 2536744
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536745


Can you download MaxxMem2 and post your results here. (for every rig if you have the time) jk jk 

Download MaxxMEM2 3.0.23.49 - LO4D.com


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> Can you download MaxxMem2 and post your results here. (for every rig if you have the time) jk jk
> 
> Download MaxxMEM2 3.0.23.49 - LO4D.com


Sure i can, but don't really see what good it would do.. ?
This benchmark don't seem optimized for Zen at all, cant take advantage of the dual CCD design, hence the low write speed. (basically testing single CCD ->half write bandwidth)

Like in all my other submissions, this is my daily 24/7 mem settings which complete every stresstest


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> Sure i can, but don't really see what good it would do.. ?
> This benchmark don't seem optimized for Zen at all, cant take advantage of the dual CCD design, hence the low write speed. (basically testing single CCD ->half write bandwidth)
> 
> Like in all my other submissions, this is my daily 24/7 mem settings which complete every stresstest
> View attachment 2537043
> 
> View attachment 2537044





domdtxdissar said:


> Sure i can, but don't really see what good it would do.. ?
> This benchmark don't seem optimized for Zen at all, cant take advantage of the dual CCD design, hence the low write speed. (basically testing single CCD ->half write bandwidth)
> 
> Like in all my other submissions, this is my daily 24/7 mem settings which complete every stresstest
> View attachment 2537043
> 
> View attachment 2537044


Alright - thanks for doing that now have some good info on what doesn't work! lol I was really hoping for this to be viable... oh well. So that's out the window as well, at least for bandwidth calculations. 
Do you think the latency is bang on point? Seems to be fairly accurate for my 9th gen system in which I just tuned in the memory on. 

@cstkl1 
What do you think? Is this going to work ok for measuring latency on your 12900K system?


----------



## cstkl1

storm-chaser said:


> Alright - thanks for doing that now have some good info on what doesn't work! lol I was really hoping for this to be viable... oh well. So that's out the window as well, at least for bandwidth calculations.
> Do you think the latency is bang on point? Seems to be fairly accurate for my 9th gen system in which I just tuned in the memory on.
> 
> @cstkl1
> What do you think? Is this going to work ok for measuring latency on your 12900K system?


its not apples to apples. maybe that inte latency thing works. but doubt it accounts for all the work intel team has done on instrction path optimization we are seeing on adl ipc..

nobody knows. best maybe a fix core count. fix speed comparison on blender or something.


----------



## storm-chaser

Well since we cannot get anything to work properly and be accurate for all hardware I don't see any reason to continue with the comp. Was hoping for maxmem but no dice there either.


----------



## storm-chaser

So I will leave this comp open - not sure how much interest we will get but at least if you want to join (or continue competing) you can (with AIDA64).


----------



## JSHamlet234

Pushed it to DDR4-3333 and managed to break 90GB/sec on reads and copies. I lost a little on writes compared to my last submission, because I didn't run suicide clocks on the core and cache.


----------



## ashlol

aida64 has its flaws but if you know how to detect them like having higher numbers than theoretical values then you are good to go with it. You should also add dual channel mode only to the rules or compute back from quad to dual and octal to dual by dividing by 2 or 4 the values.
i'm sure that if @domdtxdissar disables the tricks he will have "normal" numbers with aida64 and his posts will be valid
here is mine h24 stable too pass all stress tests being memtest64, prime95 spent quite some time to optimize it.








@storm-chaser your values are not too bad but I got almost like you with 4000cl18 so with 4220cl16 you should have much better results, try to optimize your secondary and or tertiary timings.


----------



## domdtxdissar

ashlol said:


> aida64 has its flaws but if you know how to detect them like having higher numbers than theoretical values then you are good to go with it.


I can make Aida score from 60k mb/sec read/write/copy all the way upto 85k mb/sec.. You would find it very hard to detect if i actually wanted to "cheat" and not be open about it..  

Anyway, these are my daily 24/7 numbers without Hydra:


----------



## storm-chaser

ashlol said:


> @storm-chaser your values are not too bad but I got almost like you with 4000cl18 so with 4220cl16 you should have much better results, try to optimize your secondary and or tertiary timings.


This bench baseline above was done after a BIOS reset (got greedy by going to 1.61 vcore) 
yes I have a latency profile at c15 4366 but I think for this comp I am going to try to bench at 4500, since it was someone stable there anyway, and ambient temps are lower now...


----------



## storm-chaser

Okay new leaderboard is up.


EDIT: I thought some of you might get a kick out of the DDR5 situation. That will be removed once updated again lol.

Regarding this whole bad results situation:

As @ashlol said you should be able to sort through the flukes and the real ones.

If someone wants to cheat more power too them but deep down inside they know what they did, and they are only cheating themselves.


----------



## storm-chaser

ashlol said:


> View attachment 2537701
> 
> @storm-chaser your values are not too bad but I got almost like you with 4000cl18 so with 4220cl16 you should have much better results, try to optimize your secondary and or tertiary timings.


So I spent a little time at 4500MHz. My memory is more tuned for latency then speed, but I will be working hard to optimize for bandwidth over the next few days.

Here is my best result so far.


----------



## storm-chaser

Think I should put more volts to it? This run was about 1.70v on the DIMM 










Edit: coxed a little more out of it with an FSB OC


----------



## ashlol

storm-chaser said:


> Think I should put more volts to it? This run was about 1.70v on the DIMM


depends how long you want your system to survive but above 1.5-1.55V 24/7 is really risky and will damage the life expectancy of your dimms
your values are now really good but be careful don't run them for too long as you may damage something.



domdtxdissar said:


> Anyway, these are my daily 24/7 numbers without Hydra:
> View attachment 2537708
> View attachment 2537709
> View attachment 2537710


well not really because the theoretical limit with ddr4 at 3800MT/s is 60.8GB/s and to my knowledge nobody ever reached the limit and you are here at 98% of the limit which is in adequation of what I have seen everywhere so any value more than this is not really possible.
Anyway this is really good, may I ask you to run the latency too for my personal knowledge how much you can get with this baby ? thanks
And the ram chips are they samsung b-die ? it seems like since at 1.55V not many ram chip can run daily 24/7 at this voltage.

the 5700g with ram at 4400 is impressive


----------



## storm-chaser

ashlol said:


> depends how long you want your system to survive but above 1.5-1.55V 24/7 is really risky and will damage the life expectancy of your dimms
> your values are now really good but be careful don't run them for too long as you may damage something.


Thanks for the info. The memory is patriot viper steel, so it's not very expensive if I blow it up. I want to see how long it lasts at 1.6volts. I have a set remaining to swap in if needed. Also toying with the notion of going quad channel and 9900KF route, since this processor sucks at higher core count benchmarks. I know G.skill made a kit that uses bdie at 1.55 volts stock. Also the memory try it feature of my mobo will put a voltage of over 1.6v to the memory if I select one of the upper limit pre-loaded timing profiles, at like 5000mhz or more, but I cant get anything above 4600MHz to post with this memory.

I was able to get to 4577MHz C15 on the memory at 5.69GHz but that's about the limit. I can run c14 at about 4100MHz but not as ideal as c15 for latency with the higher clocking. My NB can go to 5000 but it's somewhat unstable there even if I bump up IO and SA voltages. So it's more of a liability, that's why when I'm testing I usually run the cache at a lower frequency because I can usually push it harder. And CPU speed is not a fluke.


----------



## gtz

My 4X8GB b die kit arrived.


----------



## mirzet1976




----------



## BroadPwns

So I assume this score is unlegit, since it exceeds theoretical maximum bandwidth, right? Now, how am I supposed to rectify it and is this thread for score records on specific platforms or CPU families?








It's nothing crazy, 24/7 stable and on absolutely safe voltages, can't bother to check Gear 2, due to handicapped motherboard unable to set red range IMC voltages from cold boot or from Auto, which enlongs OC sessions by the factor of three, so no. Fk that.


----------



## Gábor Bikki




----------



## JSHamlet234

BroadPwns said:


> So I assume this score is unlegit, since it exceeds theoretical maximum bandwidth, right? Now, how am I supposed to rectify it and is this thread for score records on specific platforms or CPU families?
> View attachment 2539381
> 
> It's nothing crazy, 24/7 stable and on absolutely safe voltages, can't bother to check Gear 2, due to handicapped motherboard unable to set red range IMC voltages from cold boot or from Auto, which enlongs OC sessions by the factor of three, so no. Fk that.


The 102.9 FSB might be throwing the numbers off by a little. If you want to confirm that, I guess you could drop the FSB back to 100, set the memory for 3733, and then see what the scores are.


----------



## ToyTen

Hi there,

the first is my PC all at stock settings:









Here is my actual restult with 1,42vDIMM :


----------



## storm-chaser

9600KF rig










Z820









Z840


----------



## rvborgh

For what it is worth, here is my Quad Opteron machine from 2015. DDR3-1600 sticks running at DDR3-1333 but slightly overclocked. 4 x Opteron 61xx ES. 48 K10 processors at 3 GHz but in this case they were set to the stock 2.1 GHz. Unfortunately i've not purchased AIDA so... this is just a curiousity. I recently replaced all 4 of those with two Piledriver based Opteron 63xx ES chips. At the time i was experimenting with CPU-Northbridge overclocking since the L3/Northbridge on these Opteron 61xx was set down to 1800 Mhz artificially.


----------



## storm-chaser

rvborgh said:


> For what it is worth, here is my Quad Opteron machine from 2015. DDR3-1600 sticks running at DDR3-1333 but slightly overclocked. 4 x Opteron 61xx ES. 48 K10 processors at 3 GHz but in this case they were set to the stock 2.1 GHz. Unfortunately i've not purchased AIDA so... this is just a curiousity. I recently replaced all 4 of those with two Piledriver based Opteron 63xx ES chips. At the time i was experimenting with CPU-Northbridge overclocking since the L3/Northbridge on these Opteron 61xx was set down to 1800 Mhz artificially.
> 
> View attachment 2584438


Oh, the legendary magny Cours, one of my favorite chips of all time. Had 96 in operation at one time, my ear drums are still rattling. but seriously, it is my favorite silicon because it's the last of the phenom II architecture, my favorite consumer chip.


----------



## rvborgh

i actually would not have swapped them out for Opteron 63xx if i had not heard of the revised memory controller in the 63xx Piledriver based Opterons. The Piledrivers are basically equal to or just _slightly_ surpass the K10 in processing performance and that only happens because i am running the Piledriver cores in "compute unit" downcore mode where one core in each compute unit is disabled, allowing the other core unencumbered access to the decoder and the other shared portions of the compute unit. The main advantage of the Piledriver is the upgraded memory controller and added instructions. That is about it. i think AMD could have just saved everyone's time by widening K10, and removing its write limitations (3 in and 2 out) and making a Phenom 2 X8. Oh well... Zen was them doing that in many ways.



storm-chaser said:


> Oh, the legendary magny Cours, one of my favorite chips of all time. Had 96 in operation at one time, my ear drums are still rattling. but seriously, it is my favorite silicon because it's the last of the phenom II architecture, my favorite consumer chip.


----------



## storm-chaser

rvborgh said:


> For what it is worth, here is my Quad Opteron machine from 2015. DDR3-1600 sticks running at DDR3-1333 but slightly overclocked. 4 x Opteron 61xx ES. 48 K10 processors at 3 GHz but in this case they were set to the stock 2.1 GHz. Unfortunately i've not purchased AIDA so... this is just a curiousity. I recently replaced all 4 of those with two Piledriver based Opteron 63xx ES chips. At the time i was experimenting with CPU-Northbridge overclocking since the L3/Northbridge on these Opteron 61xx was set down to 1800 Mhz artificially.
> 
> View attachment 2584438


Totally jealous. I like your setup more than what I could get my hands on at the time. We're u basically using a 6180 SE?


rvborgh said:


> That is about it. i think AMD could have just saved everyone's time by widening K10, and removing its write limitations (3 in and 2 out) and making a Phenom 2 X8. Oh well... Zen was them doing that in many ways.


I always felt the same way. LoL this pic was taken on holloween hence the candy.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Zen4 memory system maxed out:


----------

