# New Memory Bandwidth & Latency Competition



## storm-chaser

1) Download the benchmark here:
MicrobenchmarkGui.zip

2) Extract files to a local directory

3) Run the program (MicrobenchmarkGui.exe):
*







*

4) Disregard SmartScreen filter and run it anyway









5) For bandwidth benchmark, be sure to max out your thread count. Limited to 64 threads, FYI. So for very high core count machines, you will lose some bandwidth potential if you have over 64 threads.

6) The bandwidth number you will be scored on is highlighted below. Please take a snip like this for your submission:








7) Please also include CPUz screenshots of CPU and memory tabs, like this...
Also include your windows version with your submission, thank you!









8) For latency test do the same. Once again, the result is listed at the very bottom of your result window:









There will be two leaderboards for this completion. Latency and bandwidth. We can look at L1 L2 and L3 cache numbers later... here is the breakdown:
This is how latency looks for me:

Yellow square is L1
Orange square is L2
Red square is L3

Dark red square is System RAM










Additional reading here:

AMD’s Zen 4, Part 2: Memory Subsystem and Conclusion – Chips and Cheese

Thanks to @domdtxdissar for recommending this one. 

Additional reference materials:


----------



## Zero989

Safe mode allowed?


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> Safe mode allowed?


No.


----------



## Zero989




----------



## Zero989

Samsung DDR5 B Die single rank in dual channel


----------



## storm-chaser

@Zero989
Just edged you out by the thinnest of margins.


----------



## Zero989

I should just overclock to 6600 for the bandwidth test but too lazy tbh lol, I concede


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> I should just overclock to 6600 for the bandwidth test but too lazy tbh lol, I concede


Would make for a good match up. I'm losing 1/3 of its bandwidth potential because this test is not numa aware.

So enabling numa increases my throughput by about 8-9% (at least 10-12GB/s difference with numa on) but since it can only see one CPU it's benchmarking only 22C/44T....(with numa enabled) (with numa disabled I can hit up to 64 threads)


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> I should just overclock to 6600 for the bandwidth test but too lazy tbh lol, I concede


That is about as close as you can get! LMAO...


----------



## Zero989

storm-chaser said:


> That is about as close as you can get! LMAO...


I had my fun with Broadwell-E









3dmark.com







www.3dmark.com













3dmark.com







www.3dmark.com













3dmark.com







www.3dmark.com





XD, 14 cores and 18 cores ES CPUs... At one point I saw one that was 200W, 20 cores, 40 threads. Almost bought it!


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> I had my fun with Broadwell-E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XD, 14 cores and 18 cores ES CPUs... At one point I saw one that was 200W, 20 cores, 40 threads. Almost bought it!


They are a lot of fun. Here is my usage during the test.
probably a hack or something to get it to see all 88 threads.... working on that now.


----------



## storm-chaser

Made some improvements playing around with different snoop modes...


----------



## xioaxi

@Zero989 was that latency run on E core or something?


----------



## domdtxdissar

My I5 8500T with memory @ 2667MT/s work computer 
Win10 ‎21H2

Read bandwidth = 34.96GB/s









Latency = 124.38ns









Beastly performance


----------



## Zero989

xioaxi said:


> @Zero989 was that latency run on E core or something?


Yup


----------



## domdtxdissar

@NoelC 
Please share with us some threadripper bandwidth numbers


----------



## mongoled

Nice should be able to kill this with my DDR4 RAM 

Results coming soon ...

** EDIT2 **
OK its because Kaspersky is flagging this exe as

*UDS:Backdoor.Win32.Koma.bw* !

** EDIT **

Aghhh, does not run on my PC (am running a Y-Cruncher in the background, but would have expected the app to launch)

Application: MicrobenchmarkGui.exe
Framework Version: v4.0.30319
Description: The process was terminated due to an unhandled exception.
Exception Info: System.DllNotFoundException
at MicrobenchmarkGui.BenchmarkFunctions.CheckAvxSupport()
at MicrobenchmarkGui.MicrobenchmarkForm..ctor()
at MicrobenchmarkGui.Program.Main()

and then

Faulting application name: MicrobenchmarkGui.exe, version: 1.0.0.0, time stamp: 0xd3cc8d22
Faulting module name: KERNELBASE.dll, version: 10.0.19041.2193, time stamp: 0x7f7062e1
Exception code: 0xe0434352
Fault offset: 0x000000000002cd29
Faulting process ID: 0xdfc
Faulting application start time: 0x01d8f513b9d7c5db
Faulting application path: C:\Users\Andrew\Desktop\MicrobenchmarkGui\MicrobenchmarkGui.exe
Faulting module path: C:\WINDOWS\System32\KERNELBASE.dll
Report ID: 69ec10c6-fcbb-4153-a623-adf8f4adc24b
Faulting package full name:
Faulting package-relative application ID:


----------



## mongoled

Here are my 24/7 stable settings 
3800/1900
Dram Read Bandwidth = 54.65 GB/s
Latency = 70.71ns









4133/2067, not much difference
Dram Read Bandwidth = 56.81 GB/s
Latency = 71.06ns


----------



## betam4x

Mostly stock 7950x (tRFC tweaked slightly, UCLK=MCLK)


----------



## domdtxdissar

*5800x3d @ 1800:3600 XMP timings
Win11 22H2*

Latency = 78.82ns









Dram read bandwidth = 37.89 GB/s









*7950x single CCD (8cores only) "6200MT/s" 2133 FCLK*
Win10 LTSC 21H2

Latency = 71.22ns









Dram read bandwidth = 67.70 GB/s


----------



## domdtxdissar

*7950x "6200MT/s" 2133 FCLK*
Win10 LTSC 21H2

Latency = 71.33ns









Dram read bandwidth = 86.84 GB/s


----------



## betam4x

domdtxdissar said:


> *7950x "6200MT/s" 2133 FCLK*
> 
> Latency = 71.33ns
> View attachment 2581975
> 
> 
> Dram read bandwidth = 86.84 GB/s
> View attachment 2581976


Is it safe on Ryzen systems to run TREFI that high? I read on Intel systems that it can cause instability without decent cooling. I bumped mine to 32768 (from ~11k) and it significantly helped both bandwidth and latency.


----------



## domdtxdissar

As a side note, it looks like the 5800x*3d* gets much of its gaming prowess from around the *100mb datasize*..
Most games must use that data size.. (?)

V-cache difference is showing from 65mb upto 262mb
(5800x3d vs my "8core" Zen4 below)

Latency:







VS









Bandwidth:







VS









This is maybe one of the datasizes also should be ranked at a later stage..



betam4x said:


> Is it safe on Ryzen systems to run TREFI that high? I read on Intel systems that it can cause instability without decent cooling. I bumped mine to 32768 (from ~11k) and it significantly helped both bandwidth and latency.


I have full stability with it maxed out.
This value should be optimized like every other timing..


----------



## storm-chaser

Thanks for the interest all.

I will be working on the leaderboards later this evening.


----------



## betam4x

domdtxdissar said:


> I have full stability with its maxed out.
> This value should be optimized like every other timing..


Do you have active cooling on your RAM? My machine is Mini ITX, so I wonder about the heat.


----------



## domdtxdissar

betam4x said:


> Do you have active cooling on your RAM? My machine is Mini ITX, so I wonder about the heat.


Custom cooling with two 40mm Noctua fans blowing ontop
(more build pictures in album below)


http://imgur.com/a/Qjh3cgV


----------



## betam4x

domdtxdissar said:


> Custom cooling with two 40mm Noctua fans blowing ontop
> (more build pictures in album below)



Ah, I will have to do some testing. Bumping TREFI to 32768 improved my system performance (synthetics, gaming) quite a bit.


----------



## Zero989

You should include two more requirements:

Stating windows version and whether it's single or dual rank configuration.

Dual rank ddr5 bdie would prob get me 67ns at same timings, and win10 fresh always gave best Aida readouts.


----------



## bhav

Ignore this post, forgot to close my background apps.


----------



## betam4x

Zero989 said:


> You should include two more requirements:
> 
> Stating windows version and whether it's single or dual rank configuration.
> 
> Dual rank ddr5 bdie would prob get me 67ns at same timings, and win10 fresh always gave best Aida readouts.


Is there any dual rank DDR5 out there right now? I have single rank 2x32gb.


----------



## bhav

I forgot to scroll down at first sorry, G2 DDR4 is indeed crap.

Latency 80.70











Bandwidth 42.90:











Id need to bother to put this kit back with my 10900K to actually stand any chance.

Also windows 11.


----------



## Zero989

betam4x said:


> Is there any dual rank DDR5 out there right now? I have single rank 2x32gb.


Damn really? What kit do you have?


And yes m die dual rank gskill



bhav said:


> Ignore my previous result, here we go, 60.08 ns after closing all background apps and browser, good luck everyone else
> 
> Doing bandwidth in a sec.


You need to scroll down, 60ns isn't right


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> View attachment 2582005
> 
> 
> Ignore my previous result, here we go, 60.08 ns after closing all background apps and browser, good luck everyone else
> 
> Doing bandwidth in a sec.
> 
> Bandwidth:
> 
> View attachment 2582006
> 
> 
> Wait what lul 155 GB/s is actually good?


Scroll to the bottom


----------



## betam4x

Zero989 said:


> Damn really? What kit do you have?


F5-6000J3238G32GX2-TZ5K. It is reported as single rank. Unsure if Hynix A or Hynix M, but it apparently is Hynix according to Thaiphoon Burner and other software. It runs at XMP, no EXPO profile and not on the QVL,but the kit is rock solid stable for me. I've been working on improving timings since they are garbage.


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> You need to scroll down, 60ns isn't right


Yea sorry, I completely didn't notice to scroll down, redoing latency now then updating.


----------



## Zero989

betam4x said:


> F5-6000J3238G32GX2-TZ5K. It is reported as single rank. Unsure if Hynix A or Hynix M, but it apparently is Hynix according to Thaiphoon Burner and other software. It runs at XMP, no EXPO profile and not on the QVL,but the kit is rock solid stable for me. I've been working on improving timings since they are garbage.


The dual rank kit I know is 800+ canadian so 600 UsD, 64gb kits are really expensive atm. I was going to buy a kit but now I'm scared lol


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> The dual rank kit I know is 800+ canadian so 600 UsD, 64gb kits are really expensive atm. I was going to buy a kit but now I'm scared lol


Updated my results, latency was only 80ns. Alderlake IMC killed my ram 

Can only do 3800 G1 on my 12600k which is crap.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> Updated my results, latency was only 80ns. Alderlake IMC killed my ram


Try gear 1?


----------



## betam4x

Zero989 said:


> The dual rank kit I know is 800+ canadian so 600 UsD, 64gb kits are really expensive atm. I was going to buy a kit but now I'm scared lol


This kit was $450 when I bought it. 

I bumped TREFI to 65535. Results are much improved. Have to do stability testing, of course, but so far so good:


















While it's not winning any awards, not bad for tweaking 1 value.


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> Try gear 1?


My 12600K is only 3800 capable, and micron secondary timings are too crap, it can only do 3800 13-17-17-32 G1, and the latency was already junk when I tested. It just does good frequency and CL, terrible everything else.

Only way to get this ram good for G1 is with 4000-4133 CL14 G1, or put it back with my 10900K for 4600CL15 1:1, but I can't be bothered to just for this.

I only paid £180 for this kit anyway when it went on EOL sale, waiting for my Z790 DDR4 build to see if I can get any more out of it;.


----------



## storm-chaser

*You guys are paying good attention so far but just another reminder to:*

1) Include Windows Version in your submission
2) Always include your CPUz screenshots regardless of category so we have exact details on memory speed, CL, etc.
3) If it's B die, say so.


----------



## storm-chaser

Interesting to see the latency comparisons. The Phenom II platform was always a winner in my book. Look how it does compared to a 12900K P run....


----------



## Zero989

Phenom II was the last great CPU before "Bulldozer", it should be DDR3 1333 to make it fair though? 1600 is XMP/overclocked?


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> Phenom II was the last great CPU before "Bulldozer", it should be DDR3 1333 to make it fair though? 1600 is XMP/overclocked?


*WARNING*
Below you will see AIDA64 results. These are posted simply for reference purposes, and you are welcome to do the same to compare and contrast here with the new latency scoring method. My new socket 1151 Gigabyte Z390 Aorus motherboard should be here early next week, should be a pretty even match as I was running a MSI MEG Z390 ACE before (it died a slow death, but served me well for a long time in extreme conditions). Both boards have similar features. Really excited to get the 9600KF back in action and see if I can beat this old latency # with the new motherboard. Also have some Galinstan left over from my liquid metal cooling project, so we will see how that compares to the Grizzly LM as a thermal paste. It's straight Galinstan that I made myself, using the published ratios of various metals. Still irritated that I cannot find my Samsung PRO 980 Nvme SSD. Using a junker Nvme instead, only 256GB, arrrg! 












*Absolutely right.* Phenom II was a great platform and had excellent latency when tuned properly. The key is CPU NB tuning, really responds well to clock speed increases here. Best I could manage on air was 3121MHz, and def could go higher if it was chilled. 

Phenom II Zosma and Thuban chips run will run 1600Mhz ram natively, so it's not technically an OC w/ ram @ 1600MHz. I know I always post this image but it makes for an interesting comparison here, very old screenshot but still shows you what this platform is capable of with the right tuning. Overclocked, obviously. But stock about 45-50 ns latency. 










*^^^^Best Latency Result (same configuration as above)^^^^ *









*VS my 9600KF:*


----------



## storm-chaser

betam4x said:


> This kit was $450 when I bought it.
> 
> I bumped TREFI to 65535. Results are much improved. Have to do stability testing, of course, but so far so good:
> 
> View attachment 2582014
> 
> View attachment 2582015
> 
> 
> While it's not winning any awards, not bad for tweaking 1 value.


Great to see you are posting good gains here but I need your CPUz screenshots (CPU and memory tabs) for the leaderboard for this run. Thank you!


----------



## Arni90

Somewhat limited results due to an older AGES/BIOS being unable to force 1T command rate beyond 6000 MT/s, and FCLK being unhappy above 2100 MHz strap
Still, this chip is pretty decent


----------



## stahlhart

Windows 11 22H2.


----------



## xioaxi

W10 Single thread 3.8GHz, uncore 3.0GHz, DDR4 2133MT/s (1066MHz)











36 Threads @ 3.3GHz, uncore 3.0GHz









@domdtxdissar do those z registers for the 7950x make any difference?


----------



## domdtxdissar

xioaxi said:


> @domdtxdissar do those z registers for the 7950x make any difference?


I'm not quite sure what you mean by "z-registers" ?
If your asking about AVX512 vs AVX2, it dont mean anything at the dram level.. Only L1 and L2 bandwidth is higher with it enabled.


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> Interesting to see the latency comparisons. The Phenom II platform was always a winner in my book. Look how it does compared to a 12900K P run....
> 
> View attachment 2582098


Will do my Phenom X4 965 run later this evening. I know I can run 3000+ NB 🙂

Have a sub 70ns incoming, 4133/2066 tCL 14, tREF 240 😁
DRAM Latency: 68.40 ns
Amendment: Its 21H1 (my workOS is 22H2)









A bonus benchmark (PS its not stable 😂 )


----------



## Arni90

Time to show what Rocket Lake can do

Gear 2 - 5333 MT/s









That's a fair bit more memory bandwidth than a single-CCD Zen 4 will achieve.


----------



## petar.romanov

Windows 11 22H2 
24/7 settings 13900kf P/5.7Ghz E/4.5Ghz DDR5-32GB-7200MHz-32-44-44-30 2T


----------



## storm-chaser

Ok I will be making a push to get both leaderboards completed today at some point. *Please go back and review your posts to make sure I have all the data I need to properly fill out the leaderboards. Thank you!*


----------



## mongoled

Phenom II X4 965
DDR2 power 
These are the 24/7 settings,time to bump the NB half a multiplier and see what the differences are


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Phenom II X4 965
> DDR2 power
> These are the 24/7 settings,time to bump the NB half a multiplier and see what the differences are
> 
> View attachment 2582254


Damn! This really makes me want to build another Phenom II system. DDR3 with a Biostar TA880GU3+ If I can find one.... but looking really good there for 24/7 settings!

Probably go with a 960T, usually good for 4-6 cores @ 4GHz...

Plentiful on eBay.... Zosma core Phenom IIs are the best


----------



## Zero989

Windows 11 22H2

Pretty sure I can beat this... still tinkering. Not sure if I care enough to install Windows 10 to seal #1.


----------



## Zero989

Windows 11 22H2


I can also beat this but I'm going to go out drinking tonight so done for now.

DDR5 B-Die gets so much hate but it's actually the best DDR5 for gaming in e-sports.


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> Damn! This really makes me want to build another Phenom II system. DDR3 with a Biostar TA880GU3+ If I can find one.... but looking really good there for 24/7 settings!
> 
> Probably go with a 960T, usually good for 4-6 cores @ 4GHz...
> 
> Plentiful on eBay.... Zosma core Phenom IIs are the best


Fun, fun, fun



Think im almost maxed out, will try again later this evening for sub 80 

Thankfully I found a article @overclockers.com that shows how to optimise NB frequency with regards to CPU frequency that I had totally forgot about.

I remember seeing better latency numbers when using CPU half multis and thought it was just a quirk 😅


----------



## mongoled

Zero989 said:


> View attachment 2582291
> 
> 
> Windows 11 22H2
> 
> 
> I can also beat this but I'm going to go out drinking tonight so done for now.
> 
> DDR5 B-Die gets so much hate but it's actually the best DDR5 for gaming in e-sports.


67.83 ns, I think I can take this 

I didnt close any processes for my 68+ ns run, hopefully that will be enough to go sub 67 ns without any futher tweaks as I believe I am almost at the max for my RAM setup


----------



## Zero989

mongoled said:


> 67.83 ns, I think I can take this
> 
> I didnt close any processes for my 68+ ns run, hopefully that will be enough to go sub 67 ns without any futher tweaks as I believe I am almost at the max for my RAM setup


I can go a bit lower, after that have to use win10 lol. That gave amd users almost 3ns in aida. I am also voltage limited (PMIC 1.435 limit) and limited due to 4 DIMM slots. I could realistically do a 63ns run if I had unrestricted parts. Dual rank b-die ddr5 would then further put me right near 60ns.


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> Damn! This really makes me want to build another Phenom II system.


The only thing you should be building is the leaderboards


----------



## Zero989

Eyeing this B-Die kit.









F5-5600J3636D32GX2-FX5 - QVL - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.


Check to see if your motherboard model is on the QVL for F5-5600J3636D32GX2-FX5. Flare X5 DDR5-5600 CL36-36-36-89 1.25V 64GB (2x32GB) AMD EXPO.




www.gskill.com





It's the cheapest 5600 64GB kit on the market that is dual rank.


----------



## adolf512

I should be able to do well with my 2x32 GiB m-die in this competition. The joy of tweaking subtimings makes this even more fun.

I should probably try to push up the base clock slightly to get above 6400.


----------



## rvborgh

Here's my Quad Opteron machine, but currently just running dual 16 core Opteron 63xx ES chips. Pb1 all core turbo is 3.9 GHz, and Pb0 (single core turbo), is 4.4 GHz. Memory is DDR3-1866 running at tighter timings at DDR3-1600. i'm running the processors downcored via "compute unit" setting (ie alternating Piledriver cores, turned off, so that each enabled Piledriver core gets full access to decoder, L2, and L1 inst. cache). Node interleaving disabled. CPU-NB running slightly overclocked at 204 MHz.

This is a very nice benchmark program btw.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Here's a submission from my setup.

My memory is M die.


----------



## CrustyJuggler

RAM is Micron E-Die


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> 5) For bandwidth benchmark, be sure to max out your thread count. Limited to 64 threads, FYI. So for very high core count machines, you will lose some bandwidth potential if you have over 64 threads.


Probably going to negatively affect score with all threads. Have attached simple bench using pretty much the same algorithm you can try on your dual socket or not. Only runs the 3GiB test with a ~512GiB data set. Should give similar results. No bells and whistles, just wait a few seconds for results depending how quick the machine is.

Note that it isn't a .txt file but a zip renamed because zip's aren't allowed? (Removed)


----------



## tubs2x4

does the cache speed have a big effect on the mem latency test here? i have mine max at 4.0, stock all core it runs 3.6 but once in a blue moon you see 4.6...


----------



## Zero989

tubs2x4 said:


> does the cache speed have a big effect on the mem latency test here? i have mine max at 4.0, stock all core it runs 3.6 but once in a blue moon you see 4.6...
> 
> View attachment 2583330
> 
> View attachment 2583329


Always, look at my runs, drops in cache latency as well. I would have already been beaten if ppl upped their cache


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> Always, look at my runs, drops in cache latency as well. I would have already been beaten if ppl upped their cache


I almost, beat you.


----------



## Zero989

Yeah there's a bunch I've seen with 13900Ks and 47ns/48ns which is like 43ns on 12900k. But the 12900k doesn't have the imc to do high requency so moot point.

Either way 13900k imc and top a/m die is rough to beat


----------



## Zero989

I broke the app by reducing TWR lol


----------



## gtz

Anybody rocking a 4970K? I think this cpu would be the best for latency with the best DDR3 has to offer. Only the best IMCs cold do 2800-2933, but most could do 2400-2600.


----------



## Zero989

Win 11 22H2


----------



## tubs2x4

Zero989 said:


> Always, look at my runs, drops in cache latency as well. I would have already been beaten if ppl upped their cache


so i tried with ecores disabled and left pcores at 5.0 and upped the cache to 4.8 from 4.0 and doesnt appear to be too much difference (although not sure how many ns improvement is good) from the previous pics i showed. guess see how programs work if feel diff


----------



## Zero989

tubs2x4 said:


> so i tried with ecores disabled and left pcores at 5.0 and upped the cache to 4.8 from 4.0 and doesnt appear to be too much difference (although not sure how many ns improvement is good) from the previous pics i showed. guess see how programs work if feel diff
> View attachment 2583576
> 
> View attachment 2583577


Looks right. You lose ~1ns for every ~350mhz ring


----------



## bhav

Got around to redoing this after getting 4000CL14 to work in G1, 67.31ns!

Unfortunately any CPU overclock makes the ram unstable, my IMC barely good enough for 4000G1 with 1.4v VDDQ.

Might try with more VDDQ to see if it stabilizes with CPU overclock.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> View attachment 2583611
> 
> 
> Got around to redoing this after getting 4000CL14 to work in G1, 67.31ns!
> 
> Unfortunately any CPU overclock makes the ram unstable, my IMC barely good enough for 4000G1 with 1.4v VDDQ.
> 
> Might try with more VDDQ to see if it stabilizes with CPU overclock.


Disable e cores. Set ring voltage to 1.5, see if you can get 5.2 ring. Easy <65ns


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> Disable e cores. Set ring voltage to 1.5, see if you can get 5.2 ring. Easy <65ns


tbh I can't be bothered over such small gains, but 1.5v VDDQ seems to have done the trick, passed 10 mins no errors with 5.0 / 3.4 / 3.6, before it errored within 6-8 mins.

Getting some cheap 2x8 fury renegade next week to play with, should be DJR, if not return.

Aaarrrgggghhhh error at 11 mins fudge it. Disabling e cores.

4000G1 works at stock CPU settings but the e cores were downclocked to 3.4, but it still wont work at 5.0 / 3.4.

Trying 5.0 no e cores now.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> tbh I can't be bothered over such small gains, but 1.5v VDDQ seems to have done the trick, passed 10 mins no errors with 5.0 / 3.4 / 3.6, before it errored within 6-8 mins.
> 
> Getting some cheap 2x8 fury renegade next week to play with, should be DJR, if not return.
> 
> Aaarrrgggghhhh error at 11 mins fudge it. Disabling e cores.
> 
> 4000G1 works at stock CPU settings but the e cores were downclocked to 3.4, but it still wont work at 5.0 / 3.4.
> 
> Trying 5.0 no e cores now.


What's your system agent voltage


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> What's your system agent voltage


1.36v was needed for 14-18-18, already tried 1.37 which didn't help.

5.0 pcore / 4.0 cache no go, trying 5.0 / 3.6 and higher CPU voltage.

It might work if I drop the timings to 14-19-19.

Ok so its working fine at 14-19-19 with CPU at 5.0 / 3.4 / 3.6, passed 30 mins no errors, should be able to get 3.6 e cores back as well.

Don't really care about OCing the e cores and cache on this chip, as long as 5.0 pcore is working.


----------



## bhav

@Ichirou Run this test, you will win the latency.


----------



## Ichirou

bhav said:


> @Ichirou Run this test, you will win the latency.


No I won't; I'm not using Samsung B-die.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> No I won't; I'm not using Samsung B-die.


I'm running m die and right behind the leader right now bro by .03ns.


----------



## Ichirou

Well, I thought I'd give it a shot anyway, but the program doesn't work on my fresh, vanilla test bench. Nothing appears at all.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> Well, I thought I'd give it a shot anyway, but the program doesn't work on my fresh, vanilla test bench. Nothing appears at all.


It requests access windows doesn't like apps to request unless it's Microsoft itself requesting the access so, you have to tell your virus built in protection to let it run. Besides for that you should be able to run it.

Edit: It's just getting blocked by the built-in virus crap I'd wager.

I'm willing to bet you'd beat my score and the leaders if you get it to run. I'm on an older install but, I'm running 22h2 win 11 though.


----------



## Ichirou

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> It requests access windows doesn't like apps to request unless it's Microsoft itself requesting the access so, you have to tell your virus built in protection to let it run. Besides for that you should be able to run it.
> 
> Edit: It's just getting blocked by the built-in virus crap I'd wager.
> 
> I'm willing to bet you'd beat my score and the leaders if you get it to run. I'm on an older install but, I'm running 22h2 win 11 though.


Microsoft Defender doesn't pop up to block or quarantine anything. It just appears in the Task Manager and then disappears after a few seconds.
I'm on Windows 10.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> Microsoft Defender doesn't pop up to block or quarantine anything. It just appears in the Task Manager and then disappears after a few seconds.
> I'm on Windows 10.


It's been a while since I've been on win 10 but, if I remember correctly win 10 would do that. You have to tell it to not block it right after downloading it in the browser if, I remember correctly.

New score. I'm top score right now.


----------



## Zero989

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> It's been a while since I've been on win 10 but, if I remember correctly win 10 would do that. You have to tell it to not block it right after downloading it in the browser if, I remember correctly.
> 
> New score. I'm top score right now.


Post #77 is the top score to beat now, which can be beaten by anyone running B-Die D4 or A-Die D5 CL32 7400+. Also, you have yet to pass me in #74.

I have M-Die coming.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> Post #77 is the top score to beat now, which can be beaten by anyone running B-Die. Also, you have yet to pass me in #74.
> 
> I have M-Die coming.



You shut it right now lol. Looking at the post Sheez.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> Win 11 22H2
> 
> View attachment 2583512


Damn you lol~!



bhav said:


> View attachment 2583611
> 
> 
> Got around to redoing this after getting 4000CL14 to work in G1, 67.31ns!
> 
> Unfortunately any CPU overclock makes the ram unstable, my IMC barely good enough for 4000G1 with 1.4v VDDQ.
> 
> Might try with more VDDQ to see if it stabilizes with CPU overclock.


Alright alright, but man we're so close. Arghhhhh~! lol. I'll go back at it then. This is fun.


----------



## Ichirou

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> It's been a while since I've been on win 10 but, if I remember correctly win 10 would do that. You have to tell it to not block it right after downloading it in the browser if, I remember correctly.
> 
> New score. I'm top score right now.
> 
> View attachment 2583658
> 
> 
> Forgot windows version as well in the screen shot.
> 
> View attachment 2583661


I didn't download it; I transferred it over with a USB stick with the Internet disabled.
Didn't get any mention whatsoever from Microsoft Defender. It just silently closes.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Ichirou said:


> I didn't download it; I transferred it over with a USB stick with the Internet disabled.
> Didn't get any mention whatsoever from Microsoft Defender. It just silently closes.


It's blocking it though. That's why it disappears. Somehow, it's blocking it.


----------



## Zero989

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Damn you lol~!


I ran this except tREFi was 261120. This entire time I thought 10 was the lowest I could do for RDRD_sg but nope, 9.

WRWR_sg at 11 also really helped from 14. WRRD_SG at 55 instead of 57. RDPDEN and WRPDEN were lowered but don't seem to do literally anything. Also CPDED does nothing. I lowered it to 1 and nothing. 

tRFCpb also is important to lower as much as possible. There are some other timings in the BIOS but they are bugged and end up going higher if I try to set them. My RTLs are maxed out as well.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> I ran this except tREFi was 261120. This entire time I thought 10 was the lowest I could do for RDRD_sg but nope, 9.
> 
> WRWR_sg at 11 also really helped from 14. WRRD_SG at 55 instead of 57. RDPDEN and WRPDEN were lowered but don't seem to do literally anything. Also CPDED does nothing. I lowered it to 1 and nothing.
> 
> tRFCpb also is important to lower as much as possible. There are some other timings in the BIOS but they are bugged and end up going higher if I try to set them. My RTLs are maxed out as well.
> 
> View attachment 2583665



Honestly, us three have good setups. I'm re-tweaking things to 6600 to try to get you and the other guy but, it'll take a minute.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

M-Die @7400MHz

Latency:










Bandwidth:


----------



## bhav

Noooooooo you didn't!!!!! I was winning with my crappy Micron B rev!



You know what, screw it, Im putting it back in my 10900K and winning this for good.

So I can't get 4600CL15 working again, last I did it it took a herculean effort.

4533CL15 worked and got me 57ns, but then bsod when trying to save the printscreen because 1.7v not enough (I already knew I last ran it at 1.725v but thought 1.7v might be enough).

Testing again at 1.725v, hopefully no bsod this time.










There we go, 57.63ns latency, also getting bandwidth done now. Good luck everyone else 

Something is very very wrong wit the bandwidth though:










Meh. I win latency


----------



## bhav

Aaaaarrrrrghgggggghhhhh I . WANT . TO . DIE

Unplugged ballistix max, put ballistix regular back in ... NOTHING TURNING ON!

Do full tear down, only after notice digital clock is switched off, power breaker switch had flipped /idiot.

Ok connect everything back up, here we go its working again .... wait why is it only booting straight into bios and windows wont load ???

Because I hadn't plugged the boot SSD back in :X

Another tear down and now its working.

OK, time to test to micron E die after all that.

Right so the e die, 4200 16-23-23-40-620 works at just 1.15v SA. From what I've learned since, higher SA = better secondaries, so testing 16-22-22 at 1.25v then 600 and less on whatever that one is. Will DR 4200CL16 be better than SR 4533CL15??? Stay tuned to find out!

This kit stops scaling frequency at 4200 1.52v though, already previously tried everything to get 4266 to work and nothing helped. But for 12th / 13th gen G1 its just right, 3733CL14, 4000CL15 and 4200CL16 all work plus DR.

Also 10900K 1:1 IMC thing only works in 2T at these frequencies.


----------



## xioaxi

bhav said:


> Something is very very wrong wit the bandwidth though:


Looks good to me, I only get about half that when using a single thread


----------



## bhav

xioaxi said:


> Looks good to me, I only get about half that when using a single thread


Well I suppose, I was comparing to DDR5 and was sad.

I already had that setup running at 1.725v ram and 1.28v SA for around 6-8 months 24/7 until getting the 12600K, and after I get the 13900KS, bye bye golden 10900K.

It should also be able to do 4700CL16, but I can't be bothered going for it, 4800CL18 was too much, higher timings might have worked.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> Well I suppose, I was comparing to DDR5 and was sad.
> 
> I already had that setup running at 1.725v ram and 1.28v SA for around 6-8 months 24/7 until getting the 12600K, and after I get the 13900KS, bye bye golden 10900K.


No 7700x3d?


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> No 7700x3d?


Ew no. Im guessing AMD do better in these type of benchmarks but my PCs are for games so Intel all the way.

And god, using this ancient obsolete 27" 1440p 144hz TN crap again ..... 45" ULTRAWIDE OLED WITH C2 PANEL FOR <£1000 WHEN???

Also the 16-22-22 1.25v SA restarted while I was taking a loo break, up to 1.35v SA and lets see.

One thing I learned about these Micron kits, they do very aggressive frequency and CL on low SA, but to drop the middle timings by 1, it takes an extra 200mv or so on the SA.

The stock XMP of 4400 19-19-19 doesn't even work, it needs to be changed to 19-20-20, or needs the SA raised to 1.35-1.4v.

CL14 only goes up to 4133, CL15 up to 4533 24/7 stable, but with 1.725v, 4600CL15 can get working bench stable but takes a lot of effort, then after that because its on 12th gen now, scaling has stopped at 1.6 allowing 4900CL17.

4700-4800CL16 should be possible with 1.7v+, but not on my Asrock Z690 board, and my 10900K IMC won't do 4800CL18.

Also 16-22-22-600 still errors at 1.35v SA on the DR kit, so that was a waste of time. Benching now at 16-23-23-620.


----------



## bhav

Ok heres the Micron E die, and this is the last of me using this 10900K anymore:










Only thing that can beat my Rev B latency now is Samsung B die on a 10900K


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

B-Die @4200MHz

Latency:


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> Only thing that can beat my Rev B latency now is Samsung B die on a 10900K


----------



## bhav

MrTOOSHORT said:


> B-Die @4200MHz
> 
> Latency:
> 
> View attachment 2583782


Delet this :c


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Another one...

B-Die @4200MHz

Latency:


----------



## bhav

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Another one...
> 
> B-Die @4200MHz
> 
> Latency:
> 
> View attachment 2583787


Disqualify this.


----------



## Zero989

Looking at the numbers leading up to the final latency, M Die 7400 is still the best imo

Hynix dual rank b die ddr5 will be fun


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> Looking at the numbers leading up to the final latency, M Die 7400 is still the best imo
> 
> Hynix dual rank b die ddr5 will be fun


You have to be able to get the DR to the same freq / timings as SR for it to be much better though, SR will normally do higher frequencies / better timings to offset losing interleaving.

Then I wonder what is better out of 2xDR and 4xSR as technically those are the same for the ram, just 2 vs 4 slots used.

So take samsung B die, 2x8 Gb SR people have got running at 4133 14-14-14 and claim its better latency than 2x16 at similar freq but CL15 and maybe the SR also does lower trfc, I heard it can go as low as 280 on the SR modules.

What I'm going to be more interested in for the next future setup is 2x32 Gb DDR5 SR, but no idea how long that is going to take.

.... Now my brain wants to wreck the 10900K further with the upcoming Kingston Renegade 2x8 kit which should be DJR. Samsung B die prices are still a joke, apparently you can get 2x16 DDR5 A die for the same price as 2x16 DDR4 B die.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> You have to be able to get the DR to the same freq / timings as SR for it to be much better though, SR will normally do higher frequencies / better timings to offset losing interleaving.
> 
> Then I wonder what is better out of 2xDR and 4xSR as technically those are the same for the ram, just 2 vs 4 slots used.
> 
> So take samsung B die, 2x8 Gb SR people have got running at 4133 14-14-14 and claim its better latency than 2x16 at similar freq but CL15 and maybe the SR also does lower trfc, I heard it can go as low as 280 on the SR modules.
> 
> What I'm going to be more interested in for the next future setup is 2x32 Gb DDR5 SR, but no idea how long that is going to take.


With ddr5 dr vs sr it's about 2.5-3ns at the same frequency in favor of dr. Better write and better copy. Too bad the limit is 6400-6600MTs.

4xSR ddr5 is also bad, not the same as 2xdr ddr5. 4xDR is suicide, like 3600MT to 5000MT. 

Right now just waiting on DR 4200-4300 gear 1 13th gen results... and anyone that can get near the 5300MTs rated speed.


----------



## bhav

I should be able to get 5300+ DDR4 G2 on the 13900KS with either / both the Micron Rev B or upcoming kingston kit, but I have to wait until the CPU releases.

Also new case / new board for the 12600K early December now, might push further in G2 too.

But thats with SR not DR.


----------



## Luggage

Just guessing that high EDC will help L3 latency - no idea, just winging it because it's getting cold again


----------



## bhav

So I was curious about the nm on ram and what effect it might have on performance.

What I found was the reason why B die is so expensive is 20nm is more expensive to produce than lower fabs. Samsung was planning to retire B die for 10nm A die which would be a lot cheaper, but some people that did get the A die to test couldn't even get it to 3400,

No idea still why B die and 20nm is still the best over lower nm DDR4.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

My new scores. M Die


----------



## Zero989

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> My new scores. M Die
> 
> View attachment 2583831
> 
> 
> View attachment 2583832


You need more ring voltage. I ran 1.5v to get 5.3Ghz ring lmao


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> You need more ring voltage. I ran 1.5v to get 5.3Ghz ring lmao


I'm giving it my all over here. Thank you. I'll keep pumping it up.


----------



## Zero989

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I'm giving it my all over here. Thank you. I'll keep pumping it up.


[email protected] MrTOOSHORTs cache times, he has lower ns than you, because he is running his CPU ring higher, also at 1.5v or slightly lower.


----------



## bhav

@Zero989 Theres someone that just posted in the intel threads running 10900K and samsung B die DR at 4400 16-16-16, I've asked them to run this test and post results, I want to see <50ns!!!!


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> [email protected] MrTOOSHORTs cache times, he has lower ns than you, because he is running his CPU ring higher, also at 1.5v or slightly lower.


I tried to get it higher yesterday and it doesn't like it at all. I think my chips a dud honestly. The e cores suck too won't go past 45.

The P cores are decent but again not that great considering my cooling. They want to much voltage just for stock. 




MrTOOSHORT said:


> Another one...
> 
> B-Die @4200MHz
> 
> Latency:
> 
> View attachment 2583787



I know I quoted your b die comment but with our motherboard which option are you using to pump more voltage into the ring? The pll option at the bottom of the first tab? If so I tried that, and my chip just sucks.


----------



## bhav

So wait a minute if I had OCed the 10900Ks cache would my latency have been lower???

Don't make me go through this again!


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> So wait a minute if I had OCed the 10900Ks cache would my latency have been lower???
> 
> Don't make me go through this again!



I don't know for sure about that chip myself but, I'd venture to say yes it would help if it's stable clocks. My current 13900k will not, go past 50 on my ring.


----------



## bhav

Yea well no point, I'm not gonna get much lower than 55ns on my kit with maxing out everything.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> So wait a minute if I had OCed the 10900Ks cache would my latency have been lower???
> 
> Don't make me go through this again!


yes =]


----------



## Zero989

If you take the average of all the RAM tested latencies, the top Hynix M Die is like 3ns away from 10900K BDie

Need someone with a 13900K and 4300 BDie to run this


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I know I quoted your b die comment but with our motherboard which option are you using to pump more voltage into the ring? The pll option at the bottom of the first tab? If so I tried that, and my chip just sucks.


Didn't touch any of that, just upped the Ring to a stable setting just for this bench. I run 49 multi 24/7.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Didn't touch any of that, just upped the Ring to a stable setting just for this bench. I run 49 multi 24/7.


Thank you for responding sir. I went up and swapped the other one out and this new one is way better. Haven't pushed it yet at all. Way better chip though. Newer batch too.


----------



## Zero989

Btw what m die kits are you guys using? I have two coming, hoping for 7000MT....


----------



## bhav

So I'm guessing that Hynix M die to A die is like but maybe less difference than Samsung B die to Micron B die / Hynix DJR.

The latter do much higher frequencies, but with higher latency as well?


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Zero989 said:


> Btw what m die kits are you guys using? I have two coming, hoping for 7000MT....


TForce 6400 black rgb kit. 

This bin that I have now isn't as good as the first kit " tforce as well " but, I was trouble shooting that POS Apex Z690 I had at the time before I swapped it and Asus stated that it was indeed the MB at the time had hardware issues they couldn't fix so they sent me a replacement. I did them favors by swapping everything before throwing in the towel on the first one I bought. The second one that they sent me for replacement was a good one but, trolls on here turned me away from Asus for a while so I bought this dark kingpin and never looked back. I still have the good Apex that they sent me sitting here. Thinking about using that for a build for the kids.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> So I'm guessing that Hynix M die to A die is like but maybe less difference than Samsung B die to Micron B die / Hynix DJR.
> 
> The latter do much higher frequencies, but with higher latency as well?


Correct. I think if you get a high enough bin though of the a die " 7600 " you can get these timings / speeds with a little more voltage though " higher voltage for that kit which is only 1.4v ". Once you get to the higher speeds though the latency drops back down to these latencies, and you get more bandwidth as well which does make a difference from what I've seen.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> Correct. I think if you get a high enough bin though of the a die " 7600 " you can get these timings / speeds with a little more voltage though " higher voltage for that kit which is only 1.4v ". Once you get to the higher speeds though the latency drops back down to these latencies, and you get more bandwidth as well which does make a difference from what I've seen.


Sooooo ... No one is trying to shove 1.8v through their DDR5?

Man if I had DDR5 I'd win the internet.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Sooooo ... No one is trying to shove 1.8v through their DDR5?
> 
> Man if I had DDR5 I'd win the internet.


Yes, definitely. You are the only one who ever tries to raise voltages.
Everyone else here is just a noob compared to your almighty knowledge


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> Yes, definitely. You are the only one who ever tries to raise voltages.
> Everyone else here is just a noob compared to your almighty knowledge


Someone has no idea what a joke is do they?

But for starters didn't you make such a comment as 'No one in their right mind runs their ram at 1.7v+', yet mine had been running for a long time at 1.725v with no issue.

Also according to you, 4133CL14 = 'You don't even have good ram'?

Your comments are just pointless drivel.


----------



## SunnyStefan




----------



## storm-chaser

Stock XMP settings


----------



## storm-chaser

NB to 4900
stock XMP otherwise
CPU to 5.0GHz


----------



## storm-chaser

5200MHz CPU
Slight memory overclock
CL 17, NB 4900MHz
*latency: 81.38*


----------



## tubs2x4

shut core isolation off seems good for 3ns. ha not sure how much of a diff with it off will gain in real world perf...


----------



## storm-chaser

Gun to computers head = 3-4ns


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

storm-chaser said:


> View attachment 2584212
> 
> 
> Gun to computers head = 3-4ns
> 
> View attachment 2584213



You forgot to turn on the laser beam. 😂


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Someone has no idea what a joke is do they?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law





bhav said:


> But for starters didn't you make such a comment as 'No one in their right mind runs their ram at 1.7v+', yet mine had been running for a long time at 1.725v with no issue.


I did not



bhav said:


> Also according to you, 4133CL14 = 'You don't even have good ram'?


4133CL14 doesn't mean anything if the subtimings are Micron-tier crap.



bhav said:


> Your comments are just pointless drivel.


Possibly, but it's at least educated drivel


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> I did not


Close enough:



Arni90 said:


> nobody in their right mind would say 1.70V is a good idea long-term.





Arni90 said:


> 4133CL14 doesn't mean anything if the subtimings are Micron-tier crap.


Well done for realizing that ram that costs twice the price is better than ram that costs half. You surely deserve an award for your amazing discovery.


----------



## storm-chaser

these are more or less same settings more tuned for latency than bandwidth. Switching those later.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> Close enough:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done for realizing that ram that costs twice the price is better than ram that costs half. You surely deserve an award for your amazing discovery.


He's another paid troll. Walk away, let them make their grave man. I've learned really quick and love watching their company stock crash.

Dark to light bro. Truth prevails etc. Good will win. I could go on, history repeats etc. Just respond to every comment you see from them with laugh emojis. It drives them nuts and it's great to watch them melt down afterword, then post another laugh emoji. They're losing the fight period. They pretend they're not losing but, they are and their stock shows it


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> He's another paid troll. Walk away, let them make their grave man. I've learned really quick and love watching their company stock crash.
> 
> Dark to light bro. Truth prevails etc. Good will win. I could go on, history repeats etc. Just respond to every comment you see from them with laugh emojis. It drives them nuts and it's great to watch them melt down afterword, then post another laugh emoji. They're losing the fight period. They pretend they're not losing but, they are and their stock shows.


I mean I've literally told him a million times, only reason I didn't buy samsung B die is that it was £320 back when Micron E die was £150, exactly the same why I don't have DDR5 and bought Micron B die instead. IDGAF about aida scores.

His response to anything I write - 'You don't know anything because you've never had samsung B die or DDR5'.

Pathetic and boring.

Also the whole 'Micron B die is crap ram', when its literally the second best DDR4 after Samsung B die.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> I mean I've literally told him a million times, only reason I didn't buy samsung B die is that it was £320 back when Micron E die was £150, exactly the same why I don't have DDR5 and bought Micron B die instead. IDGAF about aida scores.
> 
> His response to anything I write - 'You don't know anything because you've never had samsung B die or DDR5'.
> 
> Pathetic and boring.


I'd sell you the b die I have but, it's already sold to my brother. Just do what I said above, and watch the melt downs and laugh. I should put that setup together with this cpu and see what it does before I help him put that setup together speaking of which.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> I'd sell you the b die I have but, it's already sold to my brother. Just do what I said above, and watch the melt downs and laugh.


Wouldn't be interested in buying it anyway. Way more fun to get cheap ram and run suicide volts and laugh when it actually works.

Still not had any ram die despite going up to 1.8v on both DDR3 and DDR4.

I could have just bought 2x8 Gb b die for £95. It still wasn't worth it, I got 2x8 Gb of SK Hynix for £58 that might be DJR but thaiphoon stopped loading.

2x8 Gb 4200 17-21-21-38-470 for £58 lmao what? Even if its just £37 more for the samsung kit what exactly is that going to do for me when I stick it with an I3?

Will try for max G1 settings next to compare with this test.


----------



## bhav

Arni90 said:


> Time to show what Rocket Lake can do
> 
> Gear 2 - 5333 MT/s


I mean all you did here was run XMP, doesn't really show anything that 'rocket lake can do' or that you know how to overclock anything 🤣 

5600CL19 on 11700K:



https://community.hwbot.org/uploads/monthly_2021_09/672519520_Screenshot(2).thumb.png.c2097a7ed57bfd1d9cd96a004518d6e4.png


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

bhav said:


> I mean all you did here was run XMP, doesn't really show anything that 'rocket lake can do' or that you know how to overclock anything 🤣
> 
> 5600CL19 on 11700K:
> 
> 
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/uploads/monthly_2021_09/672519520_Screenshot(2).thumb.png.c2097a7ed57bfd1d9cd96a004518d6e4.png



You're right, he's wrong. Don't feed the animals bro. It'll bite you with this website. Post laughing emojis and watch them melt down and laugh and post another laughing emoji, trust me.

Ignore them and help people and that'll win hearts. Good shines through evil.


----------



## bhav

FreeSpeechIsKnowledge said:


> You're right, he's wrong. Don't feed the animals bro. It'll bite you with this website. Post laughing emojis and watch them melt down and laugh and post another laughing emoji, trust me.
> 
> Ignore them and help people and that'll win hearts. Good shines through evil.


I know, the thing is I wanted to post that ever since it initially posted that  attempt, but I tried ignoring it, but then it came back to keep biting me.


----------



## storm-chaser

reserved


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Probably going to negatively affect score with all threads. Have attached simple bench using pretty much the same algorithm you can try on your dual socket or not. Only runs the 3GiB test with a ~512GiB data set. Should give similar results. No bells and whistles, just wait a few seconds for results depending how quick the machine is.
> 
> Note that it isn't a .txt file but a zip renamed because zip's aren't allowed? (Removed)


Damn. ill PM u later with my email address just to test out of curiosity, but if there is anyone member who knows his stuff it's this guy.


----------



## storm-chaser

reserved


----------



## storm-chaser

MrTOOSHORT said:


> B-Die @4200MHz
> 
> Latency:
> 
> View attachment 2583782


I see @MrTOOSHORT is up to his winning ways again. 

Do you want to sell this memory kit? Would go well with my 9600KF, but I don't know if I could match your 10900K? The viper steel b die I have now isn't going to cut it. 

Can we break the internet by referencing b die another 6,288 times tomorrow?


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> The only thing you should be building is the leaderboards


Hey for that I might just exclude your "beasty" work machine from said-building-in-progress leaderboards!!
😁


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> Might try with more VDDQ to see if it stabilizes with CPU overclock.


you need voodoo not more VDDQ



rvborgh said:


> Here's my Quad Opteron machine, but currently just running dual 16 core Opteron 63xx ES chips. Pb1 all core turbo is 3.9 GHz, and Pb0 (single core turbo), is 4.4 GHz. Memory is DDR3-1866 running at tighter timings at DDR3-1600. i'm running the processors downcored via "compute unit" setting (ie alternating Piledriver cores, turned off, so that each enabled Piledriver core gets full access to decoder, L2, and L1 inst. cache). Node interleaving disabled. CPU-NB running slightly overclocked at 204 MHz.
> 
> This is a very nice benchmark program btw.
> View attachment 2582926


Would love to see your bandwidth #s as well. Props to you for the very unique build!


----------



## storm-chaser

_*Latency Leaderboard*_
Accuracy is NOT guaranteed! More updates coming tomorrow. Please check my work.









_*Bandwidth Leaderboard







*_
*due to latency issues building the leaderboards (lmao), the data set is not as detailed as I would prefer. If you have more interest in a particular submission or result, please reference the post with actual submission data.


----------



## bhav

Oi you missed my 57.xx result.

Post 97. Quite a good result for my crap ram.


----------



## storm-chaser

@bhav
found it


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Where is the 57.xx result?











New Memory Bandwidth & Latency Competition


What's your system agent voltage 1.36v was needed for 14-18-18, already tried 1.37 which didn't help. 5.0 pcore / 4.0 cache no go, trying 5.0 / 3.6 and higher CPU voltage. It might work if I drop the timings to 14-19-19. Ok so its working fine at 14-19-19 with CPU at 5.0 / 3.4 / 3.6, passed...




www.overclock.net


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> @bhav
> found it


Just a heads up, going to be testing the new Hynix 2x8 kit soon, just to compare to the others.

Stability testing 4000G1 CL16 currently.


----------



## mongoled

@stormchaser
For the 5600x, I have the 68.4ns result for latency test, not Arni90 
Not been able to get into the 67ns, looking like a bridge too far ...


----------



## bhav

If this was a university coursework,, your grade would be an F.


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> New Memory Bandwidth & Latency Competition
> 
> 
> What's your system agent voltage 1.36v was needed for 14-18-18, already tried 1.37 which didn't help. 5.0 pcore / 4.0 cache no go, trying 5.0 / 3.6 and higher CPU voltage. It might work if I drop the timings to 14-19-19. Ok so its working fine at 14-19-19 with CPU at 5.0 / 3.4 / 3.6, passed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


😅😅



bhav said:


> If this was a university coursework,, your grade would be an F.


AND
if this was a bandwidth competition your grade would be an F. Oh wait.


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> 😅😅
> 
> 
> AND
> if this was a bandwidth competition your grade would be an F. Oh wait.
> View attachment 2584316


Except you also missed my 42 bandwidth result 🤣

Well its my fault, I'm posting too many results.


----------



## Zero989

@storm-chaser

Averaging all the RAM various MB data sizes in the benchmark results in closer scores. We should do it that way otherwise 10900K looks faster than it is

Everyone would just re-report their avg ofc


----------



## storm-chaser

I also told you the chart may need correction. You try wading through 8 pages of this and see if you do any better. My benchmarks are some of the BEST on the forum and you should know that by now. 

Anyway I did it for you guys RAPIDLY to bring the comp up to date. This is NOT normal - I lost a week getting the real time updates so it had to happen all at once. but please, since in all probability there will other "course" corrections (lmao) please reference the post # like @bhav but unlike @bhav also include the full latency/bandwidth result number so I don't have propensity to go back and screw it up again. Thank You!


----------



## bhav

Sorry, I think what you should do is just take each users best result for the ranking, ask them to repost the numbers if needed.

So my best latency on the same kit was 57.xx and bandwidth 42, so just include those two, although they were using different CPUs so its all confusing.

Also like I made the error to use this test to compare different kits, I should have mentioned in the post if I didn't require it including in the list.

I've just found this thread to be the most accurate way of comparing tuned vs tuned ram now.


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> Sorry, I think what you should do is just take each users best result for the ranking, ask them to repost the numbers if needed.
> 
> So my best latency on the same kit was 57.xx and bandwidth 42, so just include those two, although they were using different CPUs so its all confusing.
> 
> Also like I made the error to use this test to compare different kits, I should have mentioned in the post if I didn't require it including in the list.
> 
> I've just found this thread to be the most accurate way of comparing tuned vs tuned ram now.


Thats okay, post as many machines as you want. We will eventually get the leaderboard right. I feel the same way. I think it's a great way to see what's good and what's not when in it comes to die spec and ddr4/ddr5 comparisons. 

Also note it is much more "accurate" than AIDA64 from what I gather.


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Also note it is much more "accurate" than AIDA64 from what I gather.


Aida is rubbish, for some reason that people here still don't know it gives me more than 10ns higher than Intel MLC. Then also this test confirms my latency is nowhere as bad as aida reports.


----------



## Zero989

storm-chaser said:


> Thats okay, post as many machines as you want. We will eventually get the leaderboard right. I feel the same way. I think it's a great way to see what's good and what's not when in it comes to die spec and ddr4/ddr5 comparisons.
> 
> Also note it is much more "accurate" than AIDA64 from what I gather.


Mlc.exe -r --idle latency

Is most accurate. My best result is 49.1ns


----------



## stahlhart

bhav said:


> Aida is rubbish, for some reason that people here still don't know it gives me more than 10ns higher than Intel MLC. Then also this test confirms my latency is nowhere as bad as aida reports.


Now if we could only find an actual real world use case where any of this makes any ****ing difference.


----------



## bhav

stahlhart said:


> Now if we could only find an actual real world use case where any of this makes any ****ing difference.


That as well. Well you can find it, at 720p and 1080p.

No idea still why some people spend several hundreds more on a ram kit for bigger Aida numbers, like if I was buying DDR5 now, I wouldn't be bothering with A die instead of the cheapest M die.

Also you get the people that think these benchmarks actually matter ... 'My ram will perform 50% better in games than your crap Micron'. Sure, whatever helps them to sleep at night.

Also corsair 2x8 3200 is at £49 now, 2x16 £85, but its one that uses any kind of die, whatever is the cheapest trash they have left to get rid off so its not really advisable over the slightly higher priced DJR kit sales.

Now I'm trying to find a second hand 4400 micron b die 2x16 for cheap, like £100 max, but no one is selling theirs. If its so crap as so many people think, I wonder why everyone that bought them on sale aren't selling them yet? I'll happily take another two sticks of this crap ram off anyone's hands for £100.


----------



## stahlhart

bhav said:


> That as well. Well you can find it, at 720p and 1080p.
> 
> No idea still why some people spend several hundreds more on a ram kit for bigger Aida numbers, like if I was buying DDR5 now, I wouldn't be bothering with A die instead of the cheapest M die.
> 
> Also you get the people that think these benchmarks actually matter ... 'My ram will perform 50% better in games than your crap Micron'. Sure, whatever helps them to sleep at night.
> 
> Also corsair 2x8 3200 is at £49 now, 2x16 £85, but its one that uses any kind of die, whatever is the cheapest trash they have left to get rid off so its not really advisable over the slightly higher priced DJR kit sales.
> 
> Now I'm trying to find a second hand 4400 micron b die 2x16 for cheap, like £100 max, but no one is selling theirs. If its so crap as so many people think, I wonder why everyone that bought them on sale aren't selling them yet? I'll happily take another two sticks of this crap ram off anyone's hands for £100.


I'm sure that at some point the higher speeds will start to make a measurable difference above and beyond synthetics, and it's laudable that there are folks here on the bleeding edge who are doing the advanced groundwork to that end. But thus far memory has never had its moment to be the game-changer (no pun) that advances in processors, graphics and storage have for the average PC owner, at least that I can see.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> That as well. Well you can find it, at 720p and 1080p.
> 
> No idea still why some people spend several hundreds more on a ram kit for bigger Aida numbers, like if I was buying DDR5 now, I wouldn't be bothering with A die instead of the cheapest M die.
> 
> Also you get the people that think these benchmarks actually matter ... 'My ram will perform 50% better in games than your crap Micron'. Sure, whatever helps them to sleep at night.
> 
> Also corsair 2x8 3200 is at £49 now, 2x16 £85, but its one that uses any kind of die, whatever is the cheapest trash they have left to get rid off so its not really advisable over the slightly higher priced DJR kit sales.
> 
> Now I'm trying to find a second hand 4400 micron b die 2x16 for cheap, like £100 max, but no one is selling theirs. If its so crap as so many people think, I wonder why everyone that bought them on sale aren't selling them yet? I'll happily take another two sticks of this crap ram off anyone's hands for £100.


Might be m die









TEAMGROUP Elite Plus DDR5 32GB (2x16GB) 4800MHz PC5-38400 CL40 Unbuffered Non-ECC 1.1V UDIMM 288 Pin Desktop Memory Module Ram (Silver) - TPSD532G4800HC40DC01 at Amazon.com


Buy TEAMGROUP Elite Plus DDR5 32GB (2x16GB) 4800MHz PC5-38400 CL40 Unbuffered Non-ECC 1.1V UDIMM 288 Pin Desktop Memory Module Ram (Silver) - TPSD532G4800HC40DC01: Memory - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com





Also sugil0vers 8200MTs ddr5 gets 18% better minimum fps than me in cyberpunk. 

I have two mdie kits coming. The above and a kingston fury beast rgb 6000 kit. I canceled my a die the second I saw gskill show a 7400 32gbx2 kit which will prob be $1000+


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> Also sugil0vers 8200MTs ddr5 gets 18% better minimum fps than me in cyberpunk.


The problem with this is 18% at what numbers? And resolution?

18% over 20FPS? 100FPS?

Say you go from 1 fps to 2 fps, wow, a 100% improvement!


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> The problem with this is 18% at what numbers? And resolution?
> 
> 18% over 20FPS? 100FPS?
> 
> Say you go from 1 fps to 2 fps, wow, a 100% improvement!


~100 vs 118fps at 1440p max detail ultra rt, but dlss quality


----------



## bhav

Zero989 said:


> ~100 vs 118fps at 1440p max detail ultra rt, but dlss quality


Thats ok but honestly you're not going to notice the difference between 100 and 118 FPS, but if you want to get it go ahead. More ram to OC.


----------



## Zero989

bhav said:


> Thats ok but honestly you're not going to notice the difference between 100 and 118 FPS, but if you want to get it go ahead. More ram to OC.


Ofc not, it's all e peen


----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


> Now if we could only find an actual real world use case where any of this makes any ****ing difference.


Does CPU/memory performance even matter anymore in stock / trading computers?


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> Does CPU/memory performance even matter anymore in stock / trading computers?


3600CL16 vs 6000CL32, 0.8% average improvement in however many games were in the review.

Tuned vs tuned is all that matters, and when tech sites try to do that their 4000CL4kit was run in gear 2.

As a general rule I buy new ram when a new CPU needs it or when its cheap, DDR5 M die is cheap now but so was all the current ram I have.

Also the bunch of ddr4 hynix DJR kits that are being sold for cheap on current sales are all crap bins, the 3600 kits do 4200CL16, my 3200 kit only manages 4200CL17, but its just to stick in the test bench / dual box build.

But surprisingly 12th gen pentium and I3s went up in price and haven't had black friday sales, so still need to wait for 13th gen for either.

All the 2x16 kits over £250 just allow benchmark e peen. Now when a £350 kit goes on sale for under £200, like my current one, thats the best time to get it.

More important will be getting 2x32 SR DDR5 whenever it comes out.


----------



## bhav

So the current 4400 micron kit I have, I could have flipped it after it went EOL and just gone with an M die kit for 13th gen, but firstly I simply want to see what it will do in G2 on Z790, and as it turns out its the best ram for 4x16 so now I try to find another for cheap second hand, however the people that bought this ram on sale aren't dumb, they know its value and the only current single kit of it on ebay second hand is priced at £300.

The 13th gen DDR4 wont just be my main system now, but also second system after so I'm going to be tracking down another micron 4400 32 gb kit for cheap asap.

No one selling it means everyone with it is doing the same as me and keeping it for a long time.


----------



## rvborgh

storm-chaser said:


> you need voodoo not more VDDQ
> 
> 
> Would love to see your bandwidth #s as well. Props to you for the very unique build!


i'll try to give them a run tonight. i normally run this thing with 16 cores active, but it actually has 32 cores. So perhaps i will run both ways. The interesting thing is that per core, bandwidthwise, it seems that 8 cores is optimal... which would make sense i guess since no memory accesses would be going off the MCM in that case and you are minimizing use of external Hypertransport links.

This benchmark did allow me to try different cores to see which configuration offered the best bandwidth/latency tradeoff. Because of it i now typically run games forced onto the first 4 cores (via Windows WRSM). The games start up on those cores, then allocate their memory first on the memory attached to those cores, minimizing latency, increasing FPS.


----------



## bhav

Ok so you dont need to add this to the leaderboard, its just a comparison.

DJR @ 4000G1 15-21-21-32-460.

Compared to Micron B die at 4000 14-18-18-34-560, the bottom latency is 2ns worse, but a lot of the ones prior are a bit better due to the 100 less trfc.










This is the worst bin of DJR it looks like, they put these on the cheap 3200 kits, so while mine does 4200CL17, the 3600 kit that others bought do 4200CL16.

Mine also won't boot at anything higher than 4200, 4266CL18 and 4400 auto CL and everything else both don't boot.

But it was £58 to add to my back up bench.

Fury beast kits with Samsung D die are £55, and theres a couple of corsair 3200 kits, 2x8 for £49 and 2x16 for £85, but those use any random low bin die that corsair need to get rid of, neither of those I don't think will even do this.

3800CL15 / 4000CL16 / 4200CL17 2x8 kit for £58, in contrast 2x4 Gb 2400 5 years ago cost £30 which is what this is replacing.

Also the 2x8 is only available in 2666 and 3200, the 2x16 is available in 3200 and 3600, the price difference between each pair of kits is just £2. So if you decide to pick these up on black friday sales, get the faster one.

I don't want to think how much worse the 2666 kit might be.


----------



## xioaxi

bhav said:


> Aida is rubbish, for some reason that people here still don't know it gives me more than 10ns higher than Intel MLC


Result for this bench and mlc









Using large pages gets close though.



storm-chaser said:


> if there is anyone member who knows his stuff it's this guy.


 I like your sarcasm  

You could use mlc for bandwidth check too, maybe "mlc -Y -R -b34816 --bandwidth_matrix"


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> I mean all you did here was run XMP, doesn't really show anything that 'rocket lake can do' or that you know how to overclock anything 🤣
> 
> 5600CL19 on 11700K:
> 
> 
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/uploads/monthly_2021_09/672519520_Screenshot(2).thumb.png.c2097a7ed57bfd1d9cd96a004518d6e4.png


Feel free to post a better result, I just wanted to give a decent representation of what Rocket Lake could do with y-cruncher stable memory.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Close enough:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done for realizing that ram that costs twice the price is better than ram that costs half. You surely deserve an award for your amazing discovery.


I've run 2.15V on DDR4, the sticks survived just fine. The CPU might not however.


----------



## storm-chaser

Thanks to @xioaxi for reverse engineering the benchmark using the same/similar algorithm to show how it does when NUMA aware and also when using all 88 threads (second screenshot)

NUMA enabled (about 132GB/s)









Just using all 88 threads without numa: (96GB/s)









@xioaxi can get you the file if you want to test on your own NUMA enabled system.


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> Thanks to @xioaxi for reverse engineering the benchmark


 It's open source on Github, no reversing required.








Look at that, maybe a numa version coming soon? 

Thanks for testing, mostly done out of curiosity so not a finished product and as clamchowder has done such a nice job already not much point me pursuing it further.


----------



## SunnyStefan

Sub 50 ns Memory Latency:











Memory Bandwidth:


----------



## Zero989

rawr 7950X action soon


----------



## storm-chaser

*still not perfect


----------



## bhav

Wow, still at number three with my crap ram, I don't even have good ram and apparently don't know anything about ram unless I buy some samsung B die 

In case anyone didn't know, £320 ram is better than £150 ram, now you know because some people need to keep telling me as such daily.


----------



## Arni90

storm-chaser said:


> View attachment 2585966
> 
> *still not perfect


I haven't subbed a 5600X?


----------



## Zero989

Just testing now for max frequency, then will dial in timings. 7200MT/s with 4 dimm board. This matches Z690 Formula in frequency, dunno if I can get it stable with better timings.


----------



## Zero989

Win 11 22H2


----------



## domdtxdissar

Arni90 said:


> I haven't subbed a 5600X?


And me not a Intel 13700KF


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> And me not a Intel 13700KF


I'm forcing you to become an Intel guy by recommending your next processor. lol


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> View attachment 2586136
> 
> 
> Win 11 22H2


Nice clocks!


----------



## storm-chaser

Yes people as I mentioned the leaderboard is still screwed up, I apologize for that, really hard sorting through the weeds after 8 pages. In the future and after the holidays we will have revision 2.0 competition and I will not let the results get ahead of me — I was out of commission for a week during the start of this. TBH you guys are lucky there is an leaderboard at all. Also splitting it up between latency and bandwidth so both comps will be cleaner.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Here's my best yet from a die ddr5. I'm limited by BIOS on my Dark z690 to 7400 right now until BIOS 2.04 comes out.



















Take that back. I tweaked my rtls tighter as well, and did even better lol.


----------



## storm-chaser

Semi related. These is the same benchmark (GUI) that is NUMA aware and I ran it 4 times so you can see the performance of all available snoop modes on my computer. Really just for reference purposes. Other than for memory benching, I typically have numa disabled because most other benchmarks can not take advantage of the performance benefits.

EARLY SNOOP:
(Optimized for latency)









HOME SNOOP:
(Optimized for bandwidth)









DIRECTORY WITH OSB SNOOP MODE









CLUSTER-ON-DIE SNOOP MODE









Further reading on the various snoop modes of the haswell/broadwell architecture.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

M-die

Latency:


----------



## Zero989

MrTOOSHORT said:


> M-die
> 
> Latency:


The guy on Twitter with the Kingpin 2.04 BIOS said his 64GB GSkill 6400 kit is A die. I'm pretty sure that could do <60ns. It would be the next step in this battle lol.

Edit - bought 64GB hynix m die kit, thisll be fun


----------



## Homex-HitTheLotto

Am i missing something? AIda extreme 64 gives me ~62ns and 87000MB/s... and Intel MLC gives me ~59.7ns and 85kMB/s.....this gives me 120ms and like way lower MB/s.....I know they're not to be compared directly as I am... but... double the latency? half the throughput? I must be too tired to use brain?


----------



## storm-chaser

Homex-HitTheLotto said:


> Am i missing something? AIda extreme 64 gives me ~62ns and 87000MB/s... and Intel MLC gives me ~59.7ns and 85kMB/s.....this gives me 120ms and like way lower MB/s.....I know they're not to be compared directly as I am... but... double the latency? half the throughput? I must be too tired to use brain?


make sure you max out your core count for the bandwidth test. Other than that IDK.


----------



## Homex-HitTheLotto

Prolly more win10 scheduling issues, ive had a few with **** going to e cores...ill check it out later, and yeah I had threads maxed out, how diff are your intel mlc and aida64s to what u get with this?


----------



## storm-chaser

Homex-HitTheLotto said:


> Prolly more win10 scheduling issues, ive had a few with **** going to e cores...ill check it out later, and yeah I had threads maxed out, how diff are your intel mlc and aida64s to what u get with this?


This test seems to put my latency up about 20-25ns when compared to AIDA64. So yeah, there is a correlation there...


----------



## bhav

So I'm still trying to understand the jargon behind DDR5, all the stuff here:









DDR5 vs DDR4 DRAM - All the Advantages & Design Challenges


Last updated on: September 7, 2022 On July 14th, 2021, JEDEC announced the publication of the JESD79-5 DDR5 SDRAM standard signaling the industry




www.rambus.com





Say if you compare 4000CL16 G1 DDR4 to 8000CL32 G2 DDR5, the IMC and CL latency should be the same due to DDR5 having double the clocks per cycle, but the bandwidth is actually meant to 4x, 2x from the frequency and 2x from the longer burst length?

Someone tell me I'm right, because that explains the greater bandwidth numbers in this benchmark.

In contrast, Aida doesn't seem to measure the burst length improvement to bandwidth and only the difference from the frequency?


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> So I'm still trying to understand the jargon behind DDR5, all the stuff here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DDR5 vs DDR4 DRAM - All the Advantages & Design Challenges
> 
> 
> Last updated on: September 7, 2022 On July 14th, 2021, JEDEC announced the publication of the JESD79-5 DDR5 SDRAM standard signaling the industry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rambus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say if you compare 4000CL16 G1 DDR4 to 8000CL32 G2 DDR5, the IMC and CL latency should be the same due to DDR5 having double the clocks per cycle, but the bandwidth is actually meant to 4x, 2x from the frequency and 2x from the longer burst length?
> 
> Someone tell me I'm right, because that explains the greater bandwidth numbers in this benchmark.
> 
> In contrast, Aida doesn't seem to measure the burst length improvement to bandwidth and only the difference from the frequency?


Peak bandwidth achieved will be the same for DDR4 and DDR5 at the same clock speed.
Typical bandwidth achieved will be better for DDR5 than DDR4 due to per-bank refresh, and longer burst lengths combined with more independent memory channels.

This benchmark measures peak bandwidth, and does not reflect the more random access patterns that typical software utilizes.

If you're unable to come within 10% of peak bandwidth with DDR4, it's because the IMC is bad, not because of DDR4 vs DDR5.



EDIT: AIDA64 measures astrological numbers.
(Yes, I know the difference between astrology and astronomy)


----------



## xioaxi

bhav said:


> So I'm still trying to understand the jargon behind DDR5, all the stuff here:


Lucky me doesn't have DDR5 so no headaches 

A burst length of 8 is 8 consecutive reads while 16 is 16 reads and therefore takes twice as long. 

Anyway, why no Gear 4 results in this thread?


----------



## bhav

xioaxi said:


> Lucky me doesn't have DDR5 so no headaches
> 
> A burst length of 8 is 8 consecutive reads while 16 is 16 reads and therefore takes twice as long.
> 
> Anyway, why no Gear 4 results in this thread?


I won't be getting DDR5 for a long time, but I like to have the information to help people.


----------



## storm-chaser

bhav said:


> I won't be getting DDR5 for a long time, but I like to have the information to help people.


My absolute lowest baseline for using memory is 1600MHz CL7 DDR3. It's a nice performance jump from 1333 and you can still run Crysis with it. And with tuning, it can be nearly as snappy as some newer gen CPUs.

Agreed on the DDR4, unless some 13th gen system falls into my lap, It's gonna be a while. Now what I might do instead is opt for a DDR4 motherboard to cut costs but still get 13th gen power. I expect latency will still be a little bit lower when comparing DDR4 vs DDR5 on an otherwise identical setup?


----------



## Zero989

Cannot push the DR far enough to really compete here. I ran once with high ring and tied my Samsung, LOL. I think Samsung DR might be better than Hynix DR M Die, with Hynix DR A die being the best unless Hynix SR A die can do 8400+ consistently, but 64GB is so much better.


----------



## FreeSpeechIsKnowledge

Me with my a die at default memory timings but 8000mhz. Doubt it's stable but hey whatever here it is lol. This is the 6800mhz gskill I got. Fans blowing on them.



















I'm probably going to jinx myself but I think I figured out why I couldn't get above 7400..

My cpu vddq tx wasn't adjusting up with my speed in memory. I'm testing 7600 right now for stability at 1.35v vddq tx and it's passing testmem so far.


----------



## xioaxi

Found a pair of old 2GB DIMM's, one with bad corrosion so tested them on W10, Z77.








Still working for now but probably not much longer. Bit of a jump at the end.


Some large page goodness.










Edit: add W7, mlc doesn't run.










W7 same board and DRAM, 3770k


----------



## NoelC

Per request... Threadripper Pro 5975WX... 8 channels...


----------



## NoelC

Out of curiosity, what is it about this particular benchmark that causes the big stair-step rises at certain points? And why do different systems have different size points where they see those rises?

Various cache sizes on different systems?


----------



## storm-chaser

NoelC said:


> Out of curiosity, what is it about this particular benchmark that causes the big stair-step rises at certain points? And why do different systems have different size points where they see those rises?
> 
> Various cache sizes on different systems?


Here is the breakdown:

*Yellow square is L1
Orange square is L2
Red square is L3
Dark red square is System RAM*


----------



## NoelC

Ah, makes perfect sense. You mentioned that breakdown in the first post in the thread but I didn't make the connection because somehow I missed seeing the diagram you repeated above. Thanks!

-Noel


----------



## domdtxdissar

Fully maxed out Zen4 memory system:

6600MT/s
2200 FCLK

Managed 89GB/s memoryspeed in this benchmark









Some numbers from other memory benchmarks with same settings


----------



## Zero989

domdtxdissar said:


> Fully maxed out Zen4 memory system:
> 
> 6600MT/s
> 2200 FCLK
> 
> Managed 89GB/s memoryspeed in this benchmark
> View attachment 2590628
> 
> 
> Some numbers from other memory benchmarks with same settings
> View attachment 2590629


this is awesome


----------



## bhav

Ok heres what Micron Rev B 4300CL14 does, just latency for now, will add bandwidth in a bit:

Forgot to mention CPU, its with a 13600KF










Ok wow, my bandwidth also went up a bit compared to my previous 4000G1 result on 12600K:










Bear in mind this is also 2xSR, so no interleaving bonus.

So why did no one mention needing to have all threads on before? Much better now.


----------



## Homex-HitTheLotto

got some Hynix 6000 m die on the way to replace my micron 5200..hopefully knock some good #s out.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Ok heres what Micron Rev B 4300CL14 does, just latency for now, will add bandwidth in a bit:
> 
> View attachment 2592257
> 
> 
> Ok wow, my bandwidth also went up a bit compared to my previous 4000G1 result on 12600K:
> 
> View attachment 2592260
> 
> 
> Bear in mind this is also 2xSR, so no interleaving bonus.


Use all threads on your CPU when testing bandwidth


----------



## bhav

Wait no I didnt.

Ok so thats what was wrong, I never realized the thread slider in the app, I thought it was just based on bios settings.


----------



## domdtxdissar

Zen4 memory controller at maximum efficiency @ 6600MT/s CL28 = ~93GB/s


----------



## bhav

I had 5400CL18 G2 stable until I put the contact frame on, still can't be bothered to fiddle around to see if I can get it to work again.


----------



## bhav

Hmmm, so has no one on Z690 / Z790 posted better latency than my 'meme tier' Micron rev B yet? 🤣


----------



## Homex-HitTheLotto

nope. most likely because the latency test is broken for ddr5 users, atleast some of them, according to the ppl on the github.,,someone even let suggestions on how to fix the code. I just got new memory, and in every other program, so 5 of them, im sub 60 ms, on this apps im over 100....its just bad.


----------



## Arni90

bhav said:


> Hmmm, so has no one on Z690 / Z790 posted better latency than my 'meme tier' Micron rev B yet? 🤣


Slightly worse memory latency, far higher memory bandwidth.


----------



## Homex-HitTheLotto

Arni90 said:


> Slightly worse memory latency, far higher memory bandwidth.
> 
> View attachment 2592774
> 
> 
> View attachment 2592775


im curious...you get 64ms in this app....with the same exacty setup what do you get with IMLC/Aida64 as far as latency?


----------

